Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Henry George McGhee, esquire, Member for Penistone, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALL SAINTS CHELSEA BILL

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

FINSBURY SQUARE BILL

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ALMHOUSES (INVESTMENT) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 18th February.

NORTH DEVON WATER BILL

PORT OF LONDON BILL

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

RAILWAY PASSENGERS ASSURANCE BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

ST. NEOTS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (COMMONS) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SHELL-MEX AND B.P. (LONDON AIRPORT PIPELINE) BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BILL

SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BOARD BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

TORQUAY CORPORATION (WATER) BILL

WALLASEY EMBANKMENT BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Personal Case

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will now reconsider his decision not to accept the claim of Mr. P. G. Nicklin, The Home Farm, Dorrington, Shropshire, in view of the fact that this claim has now been supported after consideration of all the evidence, including medical, by the Shropshire War Pensions Committee, which includes representatives of disabled ex-Service men, workmen, employers and local authorities all of whom were appointed by the Minister himself.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): My right hon. Friend has again been into this case and the evidence has been studied again by our senior doctors. I am afraid, however, that it was not possible to certify that Mr. Nicklin's disability arises from his service in the 1914–18 War, and it is, therefore, not possible to accept his claim.
With reference to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, I understand that, at its meeting on 21st January, the Shropshire War Pensions Committee accepted this position.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend tell me what is the point of referring this matter to a committee appointed by the Minister and then, when it reports favourably, again turning down its recommendation?

Mr. Vane: As usual, when my right hon. Friend receives representations from a War Pensions Committee he studies them in the light of all the medical evidence. In this case, he could see no ground for varying his previous decision, and this was explained to the War Pensions Committee and was unanimously accepted by it at its January meeting.

War Pensioners

Mr. Simmons: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will state the numbers of war pensioners in 1914–18 and 1939–45 categories, respectively, who are 50 per cent. or more disabled, the numbers in each group in receipt of unemployability supplement, the numbers of totally disabled in each group, and for each group the numbers who receive attendance allowance and allowance for lowered standard of occupation, respectively; what is the annual cost of each allowance to each group of war pensioners; and what disabilities the older war pensioners suffer in qualifying for supplementary allowances compared with the 1939–45 war pensioners.

Mr. Vane: As the reply is long and contains a great many figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

At 30th September, 1958





1914 War
1939 War and since




Disablement pensioners






all assessments
228,500
336,300




100 per cent, assessment
15,000
17,550




50 per cent, or more assessment
82,800
75,600







Annual cost





1914 War
1939 War and since


Pensioners receiving


£
£


constant attendance allowance
3,608
5,428
264,687
417,172


unemployability supplement
9,105
7,907
1,494,501
1,382,168


allowance for lowered standard of occupation
2,888
13,159
215,750
1,018,078


For awards of constant attendance allowance and unemployability supplement the qualifying conditions are the same for pensioners of each War. The test of eligibility for awards of allowance for lowered standard of occupation in the case of pensioners of the 1939 War and since is a comparison of the present occupation with that followed before service, but the comparison in the case of pensioners of the 1914 War is of the present occupation with the most remunerative occupation followed for a reasonable period between July, 1944 and July, 1945.

Mr. Simmons: The purport of the question can be answered without the figures. I asked what disabilities the older war pensioners suffer in qualifying for supplementary allowances compared with the 1939–45 war pensioners. Surely the Minister can answer that part of the Question without giving figures.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member has asked a very long Question, and it is not easy to reply briefly even to the final part of it. He knows as well as I do—possibly better—that there is a technical difference in this question of eligibility for occupational allowances for the disabled of the two wars. As I have said, it would be better if he studied the very full reply before we entered into discussions.

Mr. Simmons: Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to consider very carefully the representations made by B.L.E.S.M.A. on behalf of the 1914–18 men? Will he have another look at the position of those men as it compares with that of the later war pensioners?

Mr. Vane: My right hon. Friend is always ready to look into this position again. He is seeing a deputation from a variety of ex-Service organisations, including B.L.E.S.M.A., in the very near future.

Following are the numbers and cost:

Old-Age Pensioners (National Assistance)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many old-age pensioners in Salford are in receipt of a National Assistance supplement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): I am informed by the National Assistance Board that figures are not available for the County Borough of Salford, since it is part of a much larger area served by two of the Board's offices. In that larger area, 6,541 retirement pensioners and 669 non-contributory old-age pensioners were receiving weekly National Assistance grants on 16th December last. Some of the grants provided for the requirements of a household with more than one pensioner.

Mr. Allaun: Does not this very high number, which can be repeated in other areas, Show that the present pension is failing utterly to provide a tolerable standard of existence and that it needs raising immediately to at least £3 a week?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. The hon. Member will perhaps be comforted to know that the figures which I gave him are lower than the figures for December, 1957. In any event, the retirement pension is now worth more in real terms than at any time before January, 1958.

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many old-age pensioners in Wolverhampton are in receipt of supplementary grants under the National Assistance Board.

Miss Pitt: I am informed by the National Assistance Board that in the area served by the Board's offices in Wolverhampton 4,397 retirement pensioners and 514 non-contributory old-age pensioners were receiving weekly National Assistance grants at 16th December last. Some of the grants provided for the requirements of a household with more than one pensioner.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many old-age pensioners were receiving supplementary grants from the Sutton-in-Ashfield office of the National Assistance Board at the latest available date; and

how many were receiving such assistance 12 months earlier.

Miss Pitt: I am informed by the National Assistance Board that on 16th December last 2,187 retirement pensioners and 146 non-contributory old-age pensioners were receiving weekly National Assistance grants in the area served by the Board's office at Sutton-in-Ashfield, and that the numbers a year previously were, respectively, 2,521 and 168. Some of the grants provided for the requirements of a household with more than one pensioner.

Mr. Warbey: As these figures are still far too high, will the Parliamentary Secretary say when the Government will do something to help the old-age pensioners of today and tomorrow, instead of waiting until the twenty-first century?

Miss Pitt: Apparently the hon. Member has overlooked that the figures disclose that there are fewer people in receipt of National Assistance now than 12 months ago. I point out to him that the present Government have three times increased the retirement pension and that their record is considerably better than that of his own party.

Rents (National Assistance)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many old-age pensioners in Salfprd have been granted a National Assistance supplement or an increase in it, and by what total amount, since the Rent Act came into operation.

Miss Edith Pitt: The information asked for is not available, but the National Assistance Board informs me that since the Rent Act came into operation about 2,900 weekly National Assistance grants payable to recipients of all kinds in the area served by the Board's offices in Salford have been increased, by an average of 5s. 11d., to provide for increases in rent under that Act. It is not known how many of these grants are still in payment.

Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister know that the National Assistance Board is paying these subsidies every week to landlords of houses which are wet, old, unhealthy, without a bath or bathroom, and without hot water or even an inside toilet? Will she tell her colleagues in the


Cabinet to what extent public money is being paid to private landlords under the Rent Act?

Miss Pitt: Increases under the Rent Act could not be applied unless the houses were put into a proper state of repair.

Mr. Baird: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by how much supplementary grants under the National Assistance Board have increased in Wolverhampton since the introduction of the Rent Act.

Miss Pitt: The information asked for is not available, but the National Assistance Board informs me that since the Rent Act came into operation about 1,300 weekly National Assistance grants payable to recipients of all kinds in the area served by the Board's two offices in Wolverhampton have been increased, by an average of 6s. 4d., to provide for increases in rent under that Act. This area extends beyond the county borough. It is not known how many of these grants are still in payment.

Mr. Baird: Is not this another example where the Government are subsidising private landlords? Is it not a fact that there is grave hardship and poverty among the old people as a result of the introduction of the Rent Act?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. If rents are to be increased—and Parliament has so enacted—it is surely proper that the statutory Board should accept responsibility for meeting the increase rather than the private landlord, who should be no more expected to provide a subsidised service than is the butcher or the coal merchant.

Mr. Baird: But this is a subsidy to private landlords.

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. It is a proper demand for rent. I wonder whether the hon. Member has ever thought that municipalities increase their rents quite often and that, where necessary, those increases are met by the National Assistance Board.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Will my hon. Friend explain to the dunderheads concerned—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: "Dunderhead" is a very abusive word. I do not know that it

implies any vicious quality, but I think that the hon. Member should use a more polite word.

Mr. Williams: I withdraw the word. Will the Minister explain to those with less mental capacity than normal that this is not a subsidy to landlords but a right and proper subsidy to tenants?

Mr. Baird: I may be a dunderhead, but I am not a stooge of the landlords.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance by how much the total of supplementary grants by the National Assistance Board in Newcastle-under-Lyme has been increased since the Rent Act came into operation.

Miss Pitt: The information asked for is not available, but the National Assistance Board informs me that since the Rent Act came into operation about 450 weekly National Assistance grants payable to recipients of all kinds in the area served by the Board's Office in Newcastle-under-Lyme have been increased, by an average of 5s. 2d., to provide for increases in rent under that Act. This area extends beyond the town. It is not known how many of these grants are still in payment.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not a fact that this increased public money which is being paid out in Newcastle-under-Lyme is going straight into the landlords' pockets? Is it not a fact that this is due to the fact that the tenants concerned have inadequate pensions to meet higher rents and that this is due to the Government's policy? Do not the Government therefore stand condemned on both these grounds?

Miss Pitt: I do not follow the hon. Member's reasoning. If the people in his constituency are unable to meet their rents, they can apply to the National Assistance Board for help. These figures prove that the National Assistance Board is providing that help.

Mr. Swingler: But is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that Parliament is being asked to vote an increased amount of public money which, due to the Government's policy, is clearly to go straight into the landlords' pockets? That is a fact, is it not?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. The tenants should enjoy some benefit, because the landlord should put the house in order.

Mr. Swingler: He should.

Miss Pitt: In any event, let us not obscure the issue. If any person's needs increased, because of a higher rent or for any other reason, and he applied to the National Assistance Board, the Board would meet that need up to the standards allowed.

National Assistance, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance how many persons are receiving supplementary grants from the National Assistance Board in Newcastle-under-Lyme at the latest date for which figures are available.

Miss Pitt: I am informed by the National Assistance Board that in the area served by the Board's Office in Newcastle-under-Lyme 4,109 weekly National Assistance allowances, including those for persons not receiving pensions or National Insurance benefits, were being paid on 16th December last.

Mr. Swingler: Is this not proof positive, together with the other answers given so far today, of the inadequacy of present pensions? Is it not perfectly clear that in real terms very grave hardship is being suffered? Do not the figures prove it?

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. I gave the hon. Member the figure of 4,109 on 16th December last. Twelve months prior to that, the figure was 4,402, so that the number of people who have had to resort to National Assistance has dropped. The retirement pension today for the single person is worth 10s. 8d. more than it was in 1951, and 14s. 5d. more for a married couple.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Consumption and Production

Mr. Cronin: asked the Paymaster-General what is the present target figure of coal output by the National Coal Board for 1965; and what he envisages will be the total national requirement of fuel of all kinds in 1965, expressed in terms of millions of tons of coal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): The National Coal Board is at present reviewing its long-term plan. As to the

second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement on 3rd December, 1958.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Member indicate whether the National Coal Board intends to review its figures upwards or downwards?

Sir I. Horobin: It is reviewing it; and until it has reviewed it, it does not know what the review will be.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not common knowledge that the National Coal Board has greatly reduced its target figure for 1965? Does not that indicate that the Government have completely abandoned their ideas of the economic expansion which they had in the days of the Lord Privy Seal when he talked about doubling the standard of living?

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir.

Displaced Miners

Mr. Cronin: asked the Paymaster-General if, in view of the increasing unemployment in the coalmining industry, he will give a general direction to the National Coal Board to make larger and more prolonged payments of compensation to displaced miners who are unable to find alternative employment.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir. It is for the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to consider the terms of compensation in the first instance. Any arrangements agreed between them are subject to my noble Friend's approval.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Member bear in mind, when considering approval of these arrangements when they are finally discussed, that displaced miners are often geographically so circumstanced that it is very difficult for them to obtain other work and that, therefore, they require special consideration?

Sir I. Horobin: All those considerations will, no doubt, be very present in the minds of the N.U.M. and N.C.B.

Mr. J. Griffiths: When the hon. Member discusses this matter with the two sides of the industry, will he bear in mind something which I sought to put at the end of our debate on Friday, that when old mines are closed and new mines are


to be opened in 12 months or 18 months' time, it would be in the interests of the miners and of the nation to keep the displaced miners in the industry, if necessary delaying closures to do so? Will he consider that sympathetically?

Sir I. Horobin: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: If, as the hon. Member asserts, increased redundancy payments are a matter for the National Coal Board, why does his noble Friend interfere between the Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to prevent older miners receiving an increased pension from their own pension fund?

Sir I. Horobin: That is not strictly relevant. Any powers and duties of my noble Friend stem from an Act which, no doubt in a moment of absence of mind, was passed by hon. Members opposite.

East Kent Coalfield

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Paymaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the position of the coal industry in East Kent; and what action he has in mind to ensure the security of employment for East Kent miners.

Sir I. Horobin: The future of the coal mines in East Kent, as elsewhere, must ultimately depend upon their ability to compete with alternative sources of fuel.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my hon. Friend give me the assurance that the electricity generating station at Richborough, which can take coal from the pits in the East Kent coalfield, will be coal-fired and will not turn over to oil?

Sir I. Horobin: That does not arise out of this Question. I should have to see it on the Notice Paper.

Distribution Costs

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what action he is taking to carry out the recommendations of the Robson Committee of Inquiry into coal distribution costs, particularly that on concentration of depots and mechanical handling.

Sir I. Horobin: Arrangements have been made for the railway authorities and the coal trade to examine in detail appropriate cases in the regions.

Mr. Palmer: But will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the suggestion of the Robson Committee that the Ministry of Power should show some real initiative in this matter?

Sir I. Horobin: Yes, Sir. We are watching what is taking place very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Messrs. Colvilles Limited (Government Loan)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Paymaster-General if he will make a statement as to the terms on which interest will be charged by him on the proposed loan of £50 million to Messrs. Colvilles Limited, the Scottish steel company, and as to why he has agreed that payment of such interest may be deferred until three years after the investment becomes productive.

Sir I. Horobin: The rate of interest charged will fully cover the cost to Her Majesty's Government of borrowing at the relevant date for a similar period. Provision has been made for postponement of interest payments during the construction period, and optionally during the development period.

Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind that by commercial standards these terms are exceptionally generous, and that they have become necessary apparently only because Messrs. Colvilles are either unwilling or unable to raise money in the ordinary way, and also that the shareholders are the principal beneficiaries, is it not clear that the obvious solution would have been for Messrs. Colvilles to have remained nationalised?

Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Member has made a number of very confident assertions, but unfortunately, like so many of the assertions of hon. Members opposite, they are not accurate. If he will read the accounts of the shareholders' meeting, he will see that objection was taken the other way round, and that Colvilles could probably have got the money cheaper from the market but for the irresponsible threats of the hon. Member's hon. Friends.

Mr. Strauss: Is not this company borrowing money much cheaper than it could from a bank or some other institution? Is not this cheap money being


borrowed in a form which will make it a subsidy to the private investors in the company? If this company is unable to carry out a nationally advantageous expansion on ordinary private enterprise terms, does it not forfeit any justification it may ever have had to remain under private ownership?

Sir I. Horobin: The right hon. Gentleman got a little involved at the end of his question and, I think, asked the opposite of what he intended to ask. The fact remains that the only reason it was necessary to borrow this money from the Government instead of from the market was the threat of renationalisation. If that is causing the difficulty, the fault lies with hon. Members opposite.

Iron and Steel Scrap (Export)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Paymaster-General why no announcement has yet been made with regard to the export of iron and steel scrap after 4th February; whether he will now make an announcement; and whether he is aware that the present uncertainty is making the business of merchants dealing in scrap impossible.

Sir I. Horobin: As announced in the Press on 2nd February, my noble Friend, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, has decided to continue until 7th March, 1959, the arrangements under which the basic grades of iron and steel scrap may be exported under open general licence.

Mr. Freeth: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one month is scarcely sufficient time to allow an independent merchant, particularly a small merchant, to enter into contracts and fulfil them? Will he get a final decision on this matter of open licences within the next week?

Sir I. Horobin: My hon. Friend has written to my noble Friend on this subject. He will receive a reply in the near future saying that we shall be very glad to discuss the matter with him and with representatives of the section of the trade in which he is interested.

Coal-fired Power Stations

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General (1) for how many coal-fired power stations he has authorised extensions at the present time or in the future;
(2) how many coal-fired power stations are to be built within the next 10 years to meet the increasing demand for electricity and replacement of obsolete power stations.

Sir I. Horobin: Eleven new coal-fired power stations are now being built in England and Wales and thirteen existing coal-fired stations are being extended. For the future, the Central Electricity Generating Board plans to provide by the end of 1965 14 million kilowatts of new capacity altogether, and over half of this will be coal-fired.

Mr. Roberts: Is it the intention to build any more traditional power stations after 1965?

Sir I. Horobin: That is a separate Question, which I should like to see on the Order Paper.

Fuel and Power (Research)

Mr. Darling: asked the Paymaster-General what official organisation exists for the purpose of co-ordinating research into fuel resources, improvements in the uses of fuels, and the wider questions of fuel, power and industrial energy which cannot satisfactorily be examined by the separate research departments of the fuel and power industries.

Mr. Albu: asked the Paymaster-General what recent progress has been made to co-ordinate and develop research in the most economic utilisation of coal as a source of energy.

Sir I. Horobin: My noble Friend's Scientific Advisory Council is concerned with the co-ordination and development of research into the utilisation of our fuel resources. It works under an independent chairman, and its members include representatives of the fuel and power industries, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and independent experts from industry and the universities.
As my noble Friend announced in another place on 21st Januury, he has asked this Council to give special attention to the progress of the work which is being done by the Government, the nationalised industries and private industry on the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses of coal.

Mr. Darling: Is the Minister satisfied that these arrangements are wide enough


to cover the problem we now have to face? Would he agree that one of the greatest problems at the moment is to make the fullest use of our coal resources, and that that problem will be one of the greatest for a long time to come? Would he not agree that it is not sufficient, in tackling that, to leave research in the departmentalised way in which it is left now, and that there should be more coordination and a lot more money spent on research into this important matter?

Sir I. Horobin: The question of money is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Scientific Advisory Council is a body of very high standing, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is at this moment taking into consideration not only research done by my Department but by the gas industry and other bodies into this matter with which, like the hon. Member, we have very great concern.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman state the amount which is being spent on research into this vitally important matter by the boards and by the Government?

Sir I. Horobin: I am afraid that I should have to have notice of that because it appears under so many different heads, but I will certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the information if he will put down a Question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman consider that it is a trifling sum compared with the enormous turnover which there is in the fuel industries?

Oil (Purchase)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Paymaster-General for what purposes it is proposed to increase expenditure on the purchase and storage of petroleum products by £6,322,800 during the current financial year.

Sir I. Horobin: Energy requirements are steadily increasing and in order to meet them we need growing quantities of oil which have to be imported from abroad. The oil companies have raised the level of commercial stocks and the Government propose to supplement them by adding to their existing emergency reserves.

Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the real purpose of this sudden, substantial purchase is to insure against another Suez adventure? Or, as his reply seems to indicate, is this just a further way of helping the oil companies in their competition with coal?

Sir I. Horobin: Neither.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this a subsidy to the oil companies of this country? Or is this more than £6 million of expenditure to be returned to the Government in some form, with interest accruing?

Sir I. Horobin: It is the Government's own oil. I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's question. The expenditure is being used for oil which does not belong to the oil companies. Once it has been bought it belongs to the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Do we understand that this £6,322,800 of expenditure is in connection exclusively with oil purchased by the Government and on behalf of the Government and not to be used by the private oil companies?

Sir I. Horobin: It is bought by and on behalf of the Government. How it is ultimately used I do not think arises. It is oil which will remain the property of the Government.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Shinwell: There is something tricky about this.

Sir I. Horobin: See if there is a sticky label on it.

Liquid Methane

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what is the estimated cost of the initial import of liquid methane by the Gas Council for experimental purposes, under his auspices.

Sir I. Horobin: The costs of this experiment are being shared by the British gas industry and the American interests concerned. The total cost to the gas industry is estimated to be about £1½ million.

Mr. Roberts: Will this lessen at all research into the use of inferior coals for high pressure gas?

Sir I. Horobin: Oh, no, the two things are only very indirectly connected.

Mr. Neal: In view of the extreme danger of the transport of these cargoes, has the hon. Gentleman considered that a vessel of that same size conveying oil will bring five times as much energy into the country?

Sir I. Horobin: All these considerations were, of course, considered very carefully. The main object of this experiment was to try out the technical possibility of it, and I should have thought that the Gas Council was to be congratulated upon its initiative along these lines.

Underground Gasification, Newman Spinney

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General whether the plant at Newman Spinney is to be abandoned; and what change has been made in policy respecting experiments in underground gasification.

Sir I. Horobin: Yes, Sir. The National Coal Board has decided to wind up experimental work at Newman Spinney on the ground that sufficient results have been obtained to lead it to the view that the commercial prospects of underground gasification do not justify further expenditure at the present time.

Mr. Neal: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why it has taken his Department 10 years and the expenditure of £1¾ million before discovering that underground gasification is not a worthwhile proposition, and how does he reconcile his Answer with the statement made by his noble Friend in another place on 21st January to the effect that in two or three weeks' time we should see electricity being generated at Newman Spinney?

Sir I. Horobin: In the first place, of course, this is primarily a Coal Board matter. A long-term experiment of this kind must, in all the circumstances, be accepted. The Coal Board has come to the conclusion, in which my noble Friend concurs, that it is very necessary to have a priority in these cases, and this is now no longer considered sufficiently encouraging to warrant any farther expense there. There are more profitable lines of research opening out to us.

Gas from Oil

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General what progress has been made in research into the latest methods of producing gas from oil; and what is the expected annual intake for this purpose in terms of coal equivalent of surplus products from oil refineries.

Sir I. Horobin: Research in this field is concentrated upon hydrogenation of oil, and this offers the most promising approach to the hydrogenation of low grade coal. A commercial scale plant designed to work initially on oil and later on coal has now been commissioned by the Gas Council.
The gas industry estimates that its consumption of tail gas and other refinery surpluses may increase, in terms of coal equivalent, from the present level of about 500,000 tons to 2 million tons in 1965.

Mr. Neal: Does the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary mean that wherever there are refineries we may expect to see waste products from the refineries being pumped into the mains of the various gas boards? Does he view such a prospect with equanimity in view of the millions of tons of coal he has accumulated on the ground?

Sir I. Horobin: Really, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a curious idea of the economics of fuel. The refineries being there, surely it is better that the tail gas should be burned by some consumer than just go up in the air.

Electricity Boards (Hire Purchase)

Mr. Darling: asked the Paymaster-General whether the discussions between the electrical industry and the Government regarding the amount of capital to be authorised for hire purchase have yet been completed; and with what results.

Sir I. Horobin: I cannot yet add to the statement made on 20th January by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that in these discussions the various electricity boards will agree that their hire-purchase terms will be in general in line with the general commercial hire-purchase terms of traders and so on? In this connection, can he correct a misleading statement which was


mentioned in a debate a short time ago, that the Yorkshire Electricity Board's hire-purchase terms were equivalent to a rate of interest of below 5 per cent.? Will he assure us, as I can assure him, that the terms are about 8 per cent.?

Sir I. Horobin: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support for one of the principles which have been laid down in this matter, namely, that the nationalised boards should conform to commercial practice in this matter. As to the last part of the supplementary question, of course I could not be categoric until I saw the exact statement made, but from what the hon. Gentleman says I imagine that the misunderstanding, if any, is one very commonly made in this matter, between interest charged on the initial advance and the equivalent interest on the reducing balance.

Electricity and Gas Boards (Joint Working)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General when it is expected that the Committee appointed under the Chairmanship of Sir Cecil Weir to inquire into possible joint working between area electricity and gas boards will report.

Sir I. Horobin: I understand from the Chairman that the Committee hopes to complete its Report very shortly.

Mr. Palmer: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee has been successful in obtaining a broad and varied range of evidence?

Sir I. Horobin: It has finished taking evidence, so I imagine that it is satisfied that it has had all the help it can obtain, including that of the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Short S.C.I. Aircraft

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Minister of Supply if he will take steps to increase the Government funds available for the development of the Short S.C.I. vertical take-off aircraft.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): Work on this research project has been proceeding satisfactorily and an increase in funds has been provided.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for letting us know that an increase in funds has been provided, may I ask whether he is fully aware of the importance of research into an aircraft such as this to the whole of the British aircraft industry? Will my right hon. Friend be able to see that funds, as far as necessary, will be provided for this project which we believe has a great lead over the same type of project in other countries?

Mr. Jones: The increase of funds made available for this project itself indicates our awareness of its importance.

Mr. G. Brown: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of the increase in funds and how much extra the Government are putting into this project? In view of the possible disappearance of bases overseas which we have hitherto counted upon and the difficulties of over-flying from home bases to the Middle East, does not the right hon. Gentleman regard this as an extremely important business?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, I regard this as an important matter, but as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is not customary to give details of the amount of money devoted to particular pieces of research.

Mr. Brown: But surely, Mr. Speaker, the amount of money which we are devoting has to be voted by the House? Ought we not to be told what it is being voted for and how much it is?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, the amount m the broad sense.

Ballistic Missiles (Detection)

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply what research is being conducted into infra-red detection systems of intermediate and inter-continental missiles by his Department.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Beyond the statement that my Department is working on research into methods, including infra-red methods, of detecting ballistic missiles at long range, I regret that, on security grounds, there is nothing I can say.

Mr. Mason: Why not? Why should it not be possible to make a statement? Have we not the right to know? Is not


this the possible answer to the detection of I.C.B.M.s and I.R.B.M.s and ought we not to be told how highly this ranks on the priority list of the Ministry's research projects?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member, and all hon. Members, have a right to know a great many things, but, on the other hand, one has to balance that against the desirability of not allowing the enemy to know certain things. [HON. MEMBERS: "What enemy?"] A potential enemy, any enemy. For instance, if I were to give the hon. Member a full answer to this Question, I should be informing an enemy how to develop ballistic missiles so as to defeat any future defence measure.

Mr. G. Brown: Since the right hon. Gentleman has joined other Ministers in great secrecy in the House, had we not better ask Mr. Chapman Pincher if he can get the information from his sources and publish it in the Express?

Mr. Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that Mr. Chapman Pincher's sources of information are reliable, by all means let him ask Mr. Pincher.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House has been told that the cost of the V-bomber is about £700,000? If we have been told the cost of the bomber, why cannot we be told the cost of these ballistic missiles?

Mr. Jones: The question has nothing to do with the cost of a ballistic missile.

Mr. Mason: Can the Minister say whether this will prove a fruitful line of research and will be worth while?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Mason: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Unused Factories

Mr. Mason: asked the Minister of Supply how many unused factories, fully equipped with machinery and kept on a care and maintenance basis, are in areas where unemployment exists; and what consideration has been given to using these buildings and machines for useful productive work.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: There are two such factories in areas listed as unemployment areas by the Board of Trade, one at Girvan and one at Garnock. The plant in both is highly specialised. It is not suitable and could not easily be adapted for any other purpose.

Mr. Mason: In no circumstances whatsoever? Is it beyond the Minister's wit, or the advice and experience of his Department, to ensure that these production lines and the machinery in the factories are so adapted or converted as to produce engineering products for peaceful use?

Mr. Jones: As I have indicated, conversion is very difficult, and, what is more, would defeat one of the objects of these factories, which is to bring in a specialised kind of production at short notice in the event of emergency.

Mr. Osborne: Are there any of these unused Government factories, in areas other than those designated as areas of unemployment, set aside for use for emergency purposes?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. I indicated that in an Answer last week.

Freighter Aircraft

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the mobility of British armed forces is seriously prejudiced by the lack of long range strategic air freighters; and whether he will now make a statement on service requirements for such British aircraft as the Blackburn B.107, the Bristol Britannic, the Handley Page HP111 and the Vickers VC10.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air in the House on 28th January.

Mr. de Freitas: Surely this is becoming a scandal. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Services and industry must know where they are going from here? Since no question of security can possibly be involved in this, will he not do something in co-operation with his colleagues?

Mr. Jones: Three or four Questions on this subject are on the Order Paper for my right hon. Friend the Minister of


Defence on Wednesday, and I think that it would be most unwise of me to anticipate the Answer which my right hon. Friend may give then.

Mr. Shinwell: Can we be assured that, when it finally makes up its mind on the best air carrier to meet what the Services require, the Ministry will not allow itself to be overcome by the blandishments of pressure groups but will decide solely on the merits of the machine?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, without any question, but also taking into account the fact that we ought to have regard not only to paper drawings but to those things behind the paper drawings, for example, the ability to produce.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Provided that the technical details are satisfactory, will my right hon. Friend give orders where they are most needed in the country, that is, in order to employ people? Secondly, will he assure the House that on no account will United States aircraft be ordered for this purpose?

Mr. Jones: As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have already indicated that it has been decided not to buy American aircraft. As to the first part, I would agree that unemployment is one among the many considerations which clearly must be taken into account.

Mr. G. Brown: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the very long delay in making a decision on this matter has inevitably now made the arrival of this much-needed aircraft very much later than it ought to be in the light of our defensive needs? Is it a refusal on his part and that of his colleagues to be coordinated, or failure on the part of the Ministry of Defence to co-ordinate them, that has caused the delay?

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to address his question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Building Programme, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Health what increase he will sanction in the next financial year and at what cost,

in hospital building and repair, in particular parts of Wales where unemployment is above the average level for the United Kingdom as a whole; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): It is proposed that £1,947,000 should be spent on capital development of hospitals in Wales in 1959–60 compared with £1,593,000 in 1958–59. In allocating this money, the Welsh Regional Hospital Board must have first regard to hospital needs but of the amount to be made available for 1959–60, £811,000 is for the development of hospitals in areas where the level of unemployment is above the national average. This compares with a figure of £638,000 in 1958–59.

Mental Patients (Treatment)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the Worthing experiment of treating mentally-ill people by out-patient methods.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This experiment provides valuable experience of one method of organising out-patient treatment for mental patients. There are other methods in use in other places, and all will be helpful in the future planning and development of menial health services.

Mr. Janner: Is that all the Minister has to say on this very important experiment? Is he not aware that, in consequence of this experiment, the number of cases admitted to the parent hospital, which was 654 in 1956, was reduced last year to 247? In view of the fact that 40 per cent. of beds in the country are being used at present for mental oases, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that he might give some further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very familiar with what is going on at Worthing, as is everybody who is interested in this matter, but the hon. Member must not give the impression that very good work is not being done in other centres—work which I mentioned on Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that, whilst we all recognise that the work at Worthing is admirable, there are other places doing similar work which is equally deserving of this commendation?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Lady is quite correct. I referred by name to some of them on Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill, and it would be well if they had their share of the commendation due.

Hospitals, London (Future)

Mr. Cliffe: asked the Minister of Health (1) what reply he has made to the letter of 10th November, 1958, from the Finsbury Borough Council, regarding the future of the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in Gray's Inn Road;
(2) what proposals he has under consideration regarding the future development of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital and the London Fever Hospital.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The council's letter was an expression of views which did not call for any immediate reply. I have noted those views. The ultimate future of all these hospitals arises in connection with the proposal to rebuild the Royal Free Hospital and Medical School in Hampstead and the consequential long-term hospital needs of central London, but no early action is being considered in relation to the existing hospitals.

Mr. Cliffe: Is the Minister aware that this is a matter of great concern to my constituents, many of whom use this hospital very frequently? In view of the fact that the council has already made representations to the Minister and that the local medical practitioners have expressed their view in connection with the Royal Free Hospital, would he agree to receive a deputation from both the council and the local medical practitioners?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am, of course, familiar with the views expressed by the London Local Medical Committee and by the Finsbury Borough Council, and I shall have their views in mind. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that these are long-term proposals, depending on the time taken for the rebuilding of the Royal Free Hospital, and that no question of closure or anything of that kind arises at the present time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister give an assurance that in any further discussions about this development the regional hospital board will be kept fully in consultation?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, they will be kept in consultation, but all this will take some years to bring to fruition.

Mr. Cliffe: As I am profoundly dissatisfied with the Minister's answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Waiting Lists, Newcastle Region

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health if he will have an inquiry made into the employment, welfare, and medical problems affecting those on hospital waiting lists in the Newcastle region.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): The hospital boards concerned review the waiting lists regularly and take action to reduce them. My right hon. and learned Friend is not satisfied that a special inquiry would be of any practical benefit.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are very severe problems, including the question of employment and welfare, affecting those on waiting lists, and that it is the opinion of many regional hospital boards and others that it will be extremely valuable to have a full inquiry into the actual conditions under which people are waiting to help in a decision on further provision of hospital accommodation?

Mr. Thompson: I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but an inquiry would produce little that is new. It might show the proportion of people on waiting lists who have employment, welfare and medical problems, but it could hardly affect the known need to reduce waiting lists.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman say what action he is taking to ensure that these waiting lists are cut down.

Mr. Thompson: The regional hospital board and the board of governors are already doing all that they can within their resources to expand facilities and reduce waiting time. The answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) on 26th January shows that £81 million has been spent on capital development, and the regional board's number of consultants has trebled since 1948.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend, as I have a Question on the Order


Paper, if he can say whether conversations have taken place between the regional hospital board and himself on this question? Is he aware that, in spite of the answer which he has given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), the regional hospital board is not satisfied, and if it is not satisfied Members representing North Country constituencies want to know what the Minister intends to do about it?

Mr. Thompson: In general, I would say to my hon. Friend that the Newcastle waiting lists, which are, I think, what the hon. Lady is mainly concerned with, are very similar to those elsewhere on a per thousand of the population basis, and the regional hospital board and the board of governors are particularly conscientious in reviewing this problem at regular, short intervals and doing all they can to deal with special local difficulties. The lists have been substantially reduced since 1953, although there was a slight upturn in 1956–57.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter as soon as possible on the Adjournment.

Dame Irene Ward: With me as well.

Nurses (Working Hours and Overtime)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now reconsider his refusal to make additional funds available to hospital authorities for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, regarding the reduction in hours of duty of hospital nursing and midwifery staff.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This is a matter which is being taken into account in considering what funds can be allocated to hospital authorities for revenue purposes for the coming financial year.

Mrs. Castle: Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to give the House the results of his study of the progress reports for which we asked by 30th November last, and will he tell the House in what percentage of hospitals the 44-hour week is now working and for what percentage of their staff?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I cannot give the hon. Lady the percentage figures at the

moment, but the reports from the boards, which I have studied, show that a considerable measure of success has been achieved in the effort to make the greatest possible reduction in hours within the existing resources. I am considering, as I said, whether it is possible to make available any further funds.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the Minister say what he has done to implement the provisions of one of his recent circulars on this subject in which it is recommended that auxiliary workers should be provided because that would facilitate a reduction in the working hours of midwives?

Mr. Walker-Smith: This matter is in the minds of the regional hospital boards. If there is any precise aspect of the matter on which the right hon. Lady would like information, perhaps she would put down a Question or let me know.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Minister aware that a decision on this is needed very urgently? Some hospitals are unable to reduce working hours, particularly where they are already short of existing nursing staff, and because of that they cannot attract more nurses because the hours worked are more than those in other hospitals? That type of hospital is now in an impossible situation, and we need a decision very quickly on the matter. When are we going to get it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I follow the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have already said in answer to the hon. Lady's Question that I am taking this into account in considering what funds should be allocated for the coming year.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to remedy the injustice whereby mental nurses are compelled to work the first four hours of overtime without pay.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Any revision of the existing rule regarding additional payment would be a matter for the Whitley Council to consider in the first instance.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that mental nurses feel very strongly that they are not getting their views adequately represented on the Whitley Council? Is he also aware of the fact that the grave shortage of mental nurses is only made worse by the continuance of injustices


like this which tend to make the profession increasingly relatively unattractive at a time when we are most in need of mental nurses, and is it not absurd to have mental hospital reforms without proper conditions far mental nurses?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The composition of the Whitley Council is not, of course, a matter for me, as the hon. Lady must know. As to the comparative position of mental and general nurses, it is only mental nurses who receive any payment for overtime. General nurses do not receive payment for overtime.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the gross overcrowding of our mental hospitals and the shortage of mental nurses, would not the Minister say that if he made here a sympathetic comment on the situation, the Whitley Council would make a note of it?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We are already making progress in the reduction of hours and the consequent extension of leisure time, which is one of the main objects of this reduction. As regards the Whitley Council, the right hon. Lady knows the procedure very well and I would get into trouble if I trod on the toes of the Whitley Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Motor Tricycle

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Health when the motor tricycle, which he has agreed is necessary, will be supplied to Mr. E. D. Miles, 12, Colehill Lane, S.W.6.

Mr. R. Thompson: It was delivered last week.

Mr. Stewart: Whilst thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he will consider why it was that Mr. Miles's first application was refused, when it is clear that it ought not to have been refused?

Mr. Thompson: We refuse applications only on the medical advice that we receive. It is the case that Mr. Miles's original application was turned down in 1957, but a medical re-examination last November showed that his condition had deteriorated and that he then qualified for the machine.

Old People (Care and Treatment)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will ask local health authorities, hospital boards, and health executive councils to prepare plans for the development of services for the care and treatment of old people, taking into account the experience of work done in Oxford, Sunderland, and elsewhere.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am satisfied that local authorities and hospital boards are fully alive to the need for continuing to develop these services, in collaboration with executive councils and local medical committees, on lines which the experience gained in the past 10 years has shown to be sound.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that certainly in the north-east of England and in the Newcastle area there is urgent need for the development of further services, and is it not now desirable for an actual lead to be given by the Ministry to encourage further work throughout the country on those lines?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I gave a lead in October, 1957, by the issue of circulars at that time to the local authorities and to the hospital authorities. It is, of course, open to all authorities in the application of the principles there recommended to have in mind the particular procedures carried on in Oxford and Sunderland.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to consider some special funds being made available for the further development of the experimental work that has been started?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have not been asked by these authorities for a special allocation for that, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)

Mr. Dance: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your help? In the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th February, Vol. 599, c. 551, I was wrongly reported. Where I referred to the grave anxiety which exists at present in Redditch, the Report reads "Reading". This has caused a certain amount of confusion. May I ask that this shall be changed?

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the necessary correction will be made in the Bound Volume.

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

3.31 p.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a rather complicated Bill on a rather technical subject, but I hope to explain to the House that it is a relatively simple Measure. As the Title explains, it is concerned with the licensing and insurance of nuclear installations. Broadly speaking, its purpose is to ensure the maximum safety in the construction and operation of these installations and also to ensure that, should an accident occur, anyone damaged thereby shall be properly compensated.
I will start by stressing that the likelihood of radioactive damage or hurt to an individual arising from a nuclear installation is very remote. As the House is aware, there are many interlocking safety devices designed to prevent either human or mechanical error giving rise to a serious accident. But, of course, no one can guarantee complete safety in any human contraption, and the fact remains that in nuclear reactors large quantities of radioactive, and, therefore, potentially dangerous substances will be employed. There is always the possibility, however remote, of something happening in the course of operation or in the disposal of waste or in the treatment of the irradiated fuel elements which may give rise to injury to human beings, or to damage to property.
So I start by emphasising that the danger we have in mind is extremely remote, but should, by any unfortunate occurrence, an accident occur, the damage that would be occasioned might be serious. Therefore, it seems to the Government that we need, first, to take all possible precautions by instituting a licensing control and safety system, and, secondly, that we ought to deal with the question of insurance against and compensation for an accident. The very special problems of insuring against an accident—the possibility is extremely remote, but should one occur it might be very serious—are

unique in the general experience of insurance.
The installations concerned are likely, first, to be those owned by Government Departments or by the Atomic Energy Authority; or, secondly, installations owned by a nationalised industry, which is at present the electricity industry; or, thirdly, nuclear reactors or installations owned by private enterprise or by private organisations. There is at present one research reactor privately owned, and I understand that there may be more. Also, as the House is aware, there are several nuclear power stations under construction and planned for the electricity authorities.
The present position of the law is not fully satisfactory either as regards control or liability for damage. To take, first, the Atomic Energy Authority, this has to obtain planning consent for what it does but there is no code laid down by the Government at present for the obtaining of planning consent, for the provision of safe construction or safe operation. The Atomic Energy Authority, however, already has absolute liability and that is the precedent we are taking and applying to privately owned or nationalised industry owned reactors. Government Departments have at present the normal liability under the common law which, I think I would be right in saying, is probably liability only in case of negligence.
Nationalised industries and private enterprise owners of reactors and other installations are subject to planning control and they are, at any rate, theoretically, subject to a possible control under the existing atomic energy legislation. We do not consider that this possible control is adequate to give the kind of regular and definite assurance needed that reactors are constructed and operated in accordance with the highest standards of safety.
On the question of damage, what would be the exact legal liability of private owners is a matter of same doubt. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will have a better opinion on this point than I have. Whether Rylands v. Fletcher would apply, I do not know, but we feel that this is a matter of doubt which should be resolved, and that we should make quite clear the legal liability of


private owners of nuclear installations to anyone who is hurt or damaged by an accident.
Finally, there is the fact that under the existing legislation the limitation of claims for damage is three years in the case of personal injury and six years in the case of damage to property. That is the general rule which, in the nature of the special risks that arise in the emission of radioactive substances, we do not think is adequate.
So, for all those reasons, the Government feel that the Bill is necessary to clarify the position and to make it absolutely satisfactory in the public interest. I will not take up too much of the time of the House, but I would like to explain the main effect of the Bill and the details we shall be considering during the course of the Committee stage.
The main principles of the Bill are as follow. First, it will apply to nuclear reactors, as will be seen by Clause 1 (1, a). It can also be applied by regulation to a wide range of other installations designed for the production, disposal or treatment of radioactive matter. The problem is that one cannot be certain at this stage what types of installation may be devised in the future which will involve the use of large and dangerous quantities of radioactive matter. Therefore, one cannot define them entirely at present. It is desirable to leave it to be settled by regulations—which, according to the Bill, are subject to the control of Parliament—what further installations or equipment we should make subject to this licensing system.
In theory, I agree, it will be possible to extend the control even to the possession or storage of small quantities of radioactive material in hospitals or universities. That is certainly not our intention—we have no intention of introducing regulations to that effect—but it is important to give power to extend the general scope of the control to cover in the future those cases where it is clear that the radioactive material will be present on such a scale as to give rise to a risk of serious damage should an accident occur.
The first effect of the Bill is to say that no one shall construct or operate a reactor on any site without a licence from the Minister. The Minister will set up an inspectorate to advise him and to ensure that

his licensing system is effective, and the conditions of the licence will be variable according to the circumstances, and revocable if necessary, and will cover the whole field from design and construction through to operation and maintenance.
In establishing his inspectorate my noble Friend the Minister of Power will, naturally, work in close consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority, which possesses the greatest pool of expert knowledge on this subject. He intends, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to set up a nuclear safety advisory committee of eminent and qualified people who will be able to keep them fully in touch with development of thought in this field. So there will be a full and, we believe, effective control over the construction, operation and maintenance of these nuclear installations.
This will not apply in the same form either to Government Departments should they establish nuclear reactors or to the Atomic Energy Authority, and I suggest that there are good reasons for this. With regard to the Departments, I suggest that it would be contrary to all practice for the Crown to license itself, for one Government Department to license another; but the Ministers concerned have a responsibility to this House, which seems to me to be the right guarantee in this field.
So far as the Atomic Energy Authority is concerned, it is really a question of "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Its people know most about this thing. One could not possibly have a safety organisation which would tell them what to do about their experimental reactors without knowing as much as they do about the experiments. In other words, as they are dealing with experimental reactors and not the normal commercial type of reactor; and as they have the greatest fund of knowledge about these things, it seems rather pointless to subject them to this statutory licensing system. But the intention is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister responsible for these matters, will issue a directive to the Authority to co-operate with the licensing body and to follow as far as practicable the code of practice which the licensing authority will establish.

Mr. Farey-Jones: My right hon. Friend mentioned an advisory committee. Will the committee advise the Minister or the Atomic Energy Authority?

Mr. Maudling: It will advise the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Another problem is the discharge of waste from reactors. The intention in that case is to apply to all owners of reactors the provision which by the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, are applied to the Authority, namely, that it is subject to the control of the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland in what it is permitted to do in the handling of waste.
The question of the transport between two sites of irradiated fuel elements will be dealt with under the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948.
I come next to the question of liability. I take, first, the licensees, namely, the nationalised industries or the private enterprises which own the installations. There will be placed on them an absolute liability towards everyone, including their employees, who may in any way be hurt or damaged by the emission of radioactive substances from their installations, and this absolute liability will replace or subsume their common law liability, which is now limited to cases of negligence. The only qualification of this absolute liability is the natural qualification where contributory negligence can be established. If so, that can be pleaded in mitigation of damage.
The absolute liability will apply to everything that happens on the site of the nuclear installation and anything that emerges from it whether by reason of the operation of the reactor or the discharge of waste, and it will also apply to any hurt or damage caused in the course of the transport of irradiated fuel elements.
We therefore feel that the Bill, as drafted, will place upon the people concerned an absolute liability for hurt or damage in all cases where, conceivably, hurt or damage can be caused by radioactive substances.
The other extension which the Bill provides is in the period of claim, which is

extended to thirty years in the case of both damage to an individual and damage to property. That contrasts with the periods of three and six years respectively which, as I mentioned earlier, are the rule under existing law. The reason for this extension is the fact that hurt or damage caused by radiation can take a very long time indeed to become apparent. I think that it is now agreed by all concerned that the limitations in this case should be very much longer than the normal rule.
Under Clause 8, the Atomic Energy Authority and Government Departments will have precisely the same liability, an absolute liability towards anyone, including their employees, hurt or damaged. The only small difference between the two is that in the case of licensees enemy action is excluded, but in the case of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Departments enemy action is included.
So the second stage of the Bill—after the first stage, which provided for the licensing and the safety regulations—is to provide that, should anyone be hurt or damagd despite the safety precautions he or she shall be absolutely entitled to compensation.
The third, and, in effect, final, stage of the Bill is to ensure that adequate cover is provided so that people who have a claim to compensation can be confident that that claim will be met. The Atomic Energy Authority and the Government Departments, do not insure and any claim falling upon them would have to be met automatically out of public funds. So no special provision is made in their case.
In the case of the licensees—the nationalised industries or private owners—the Government consider that this is a commercial risk, a risk which will arise in the course of commercial operation, and that it should, therefore, be the responsibility of the owners of the installations to provide insurance to cover them against the risk of having to meet this absolute liability for either hurt or damage. It is, however, not possible to provide insurance cover of an unlimited amount or over a period so long as thirty years. This is not only experience in this country. It is experience in some neighbouring countries as well.
I think that hon. Members who are aware of the nature of the insurance market will readily appreciate that a risk of that kind is really not an insurable risk in the normal commercial sense. We have, therefore, provided in the Bill that the owners of the installations must hold themselves covered, by insurance or other means to the satisfaction of the Minister, up to £5 million.
This figure has been settled in the light of an assessment of the possible damage which might be caused in the very remote possibility of a serious accident and of the possibilities of the insurance market. Beyond that, should a major disaster occur—which, I must repeat, expert information at present finds inconceivable, but cannot guarantee is impossible—it would appear to be a matter for consideration by Parliament and devolving upon the responsibility of the Government. So the Bill provides that, beyond the £5 million figure for which the owners of the installations are responsible to hold themselves covered, provision will be made by Parliament.
This, it seems to us, is the practical way of dealing with the problem. Should a disaster of unforeseeable magnitude occur, then Parliament will have to make provision. Equally, in the case of the length of claim, it is, as a practical matter, impossible to ensure against claims arising more than about ten years ahead. Should claims arise after ten years up to a period of thirty years, these, again, will devolve upon Parliament for settlement.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Would the Minister make it clear, because there does seem to be some doubt even now, that employees in the plants as well as the general public are covered by this general insurance?

Mr. Maudling: I thought that I had mentioned that. I am very glad to repeat it. The liability of the owners of the installations is absolute to their employees just as it is to the general public. Therefore, the employees could not possibly be more clearly and completely covered.
The insurance provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that the absolute liability resting upon the owners should be sustainable and that people can be guaranteed not only their right of action, but also that where they have a right of

action the necessary compensation will be forthcoming. We decided that this was a matter which should be the proper commercial responsibility of the people concerned, but that, on the other hand, it was not practicable for them to carry the entire risks up to unlimited amounts and over a very extended period. Therefore, it is on the basis of those principles that the Bill provides how compensation shall be settled.

Mr. Raymond Gower: My right hon. Friend said "by insurance or other means". Will he elaborate on the "other means"?

Mr. Maudling: Theoretically, they could hold enough cash themselves available to meet it. In practice, insurance will be the means. In drawing up a Statute one has to cover all possibilities. In practice, one would expect this to be a matter of commercial insurance.
To sum up, without going into the details of these matters, which, I think, are more appropriate for the Committee stage, I have tried to deal with the main principles and purposes of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, the existing law is either inadequate or uncertain to cover the whole of this problem. Therefore, we have tried to provide, first, for maximum safety in construction, operation and maintenance of these installations; secondly, to clarify the law as to liability and impose an absolute liability in respect of all the people who enter or operate reactors; and, thirdly, to ensure that people who are hurt or damaged can be confident that they will receive the compensation to which they will be entitled.
I should like to conclude by emphasising once again that an accident on a serious scale is considered by all expert opinion to be a very remote possibility, and that every possible safety device is being installed in all the reactors and similar installations. But, despite that, the Government thought it right to provide against a contingency that might arise, first, through the licensing system, to make the contingency even more remote, and, secondly, through the insurance system, to provide that, if an accident should occur, anyone hurt or damaged shall be properly compensated.

3.55 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: We should all be grateful to the Minister for


the clear way in which he has explained the purposes of this Bill. We all agree with him that almost, as we are, at the outset of the large scale development of the use of nuclear power it is desirable to get down to the task of formulating general comprehensive safety measures.
I understand from the Minister that he contemplates that some kind of code will gradually be evolved and that a direction is to be given to the Atomic Energy Authority that it is to be observed; and I presume that conditions attached to licences will in due course become comprehensive in form and cover all the various safety precautions that would be necessary in given conditions, in the case of different sorts of installations and in different sites. That is a purpose of which we all very much approve. Whether we know enough now to be able to foresee all the possible risks is very much open to question, but that is not a reason for not beginning to do what we can.
I should like, at the outset, to call attention to some of the features of the Bill. The licensing provisions are extremely wide. Clause 1 (1, a) relates to plant which at present, it is thought, will mean ordinary nuclear reactors. The licence which is to attach to a site is one which will enable the plant to be installed and also to be operated. The purpose for which it can be operated includes the actual production of atomic energy through a maintained and controlled fission process.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, subsection (1, b) is designed to apply to types of installation which we cannot yet foresee and which will, in due course, be prescribed, I suppose by Statutory Instrument. It may include any type of nuclear installation. The language of paragraph (b) will cover installations which are designed not merely for the production of, but also for the use of, atomic energy. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is not only the installation, but also the operation of any new installation, including operation for the purpose of using atomic energy.
Under Clause 1, the licence is very wide in scope. It covers everything. It covers present reactors. It covers all sorts of future installations. It covers the actual production of atomic energy and it covers the use if it. Therefore, a private operator

who may obtain a licence for one of these sites may be given a licence which will enable him to do everything-to produce atomic energy and to use it, not only on his own premises, but presumably also by selling it or by distributing it in any form that he thinks desirable.
The question that I should like to ask the Minister is this. The Minister has already referred to the existing provisions for licensing. In section 10 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, the then Minister was given the power to prohibit, except by licence, all the things that I have just been describing. All these various processes—getting the minerals, in the first place; building the plant, in the second place; producing atomic energy, in the third place and using it, in the fourth place—are at present only permissible if a licence is granted by the appropriate Minister. When the 1946 Act was passed, that was the Minister of Supply. Later, those functions were taken over by the Lord President of the Council and I gather that the duty of granting or withholding licences is now vested in the Prime Minister.
I cannot understand why there should be this duplicated system of licensing. Has a private operator or a nationalised industry first to go to the Prime Minister to obtain the licence, which at present has to be given under Section 10 of the 1946 Act, and, having obtained it, to go to the Minister of Power and obtain a second licence applying to the site? If so, that is an extraordinary and cumbersome procedure. If there are existing provisions for the granting of licences it is very difficult to justify the super-imposition on that system of a new requirement that there should be a licence attaching to the site.
I am a little suspicious about the provisions of Clause 1, because I find that the Minister's powers to grant licences under Section 10 of the 1946 Act are somewhat circumscribed. Subsection (2) of that Section says that Minister is to secure so far as practicable in the issue of his licences that minerals, substances and plant are to be available for the purposes of research and education, and for Medical and biological purposes. The subsection concludes:
…and for commercial purposes not involving the production or use of atomic energy.
Has that limitation now been removed? So far as I know, subsection (2) has not


been repealed. It would, therefore, seem to be the position that when issuing a licence the Prime Minister has to bear in mind the limitation imposed on him by Section 10 (2) of the 1946 Act. Unless I have misunderstood the existing legislation—and the right hon. Gentleman said that it was somewhat vague and unsatisfactory—its provisions are perfectly plain, that at the moment a licence has to be issued in circumstances which will ensure that the use of atomic energy for commercial purposes shall be limited and shall not involve the production or use of atomic energy. There may be a perfectly simple explanation of the difficulty with which I find myself confronted. The Minister did not give us the answer and I will be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will state what the present position is. The House would wish to know
When asked in another place about this matter, the Minister of Power somewhat perplexed the noble Lords who were asking him, because he gave no fewer than four inconsistent answers At one time, he said that at present any person could operate a nuclear reactor without a licence, apart from the ordinary patent licence which he had to obtain from the Atomic Energy Authority. He then gave an answer which seemed to simply that a private firm would need a licence only in the case of a research reactor. He then said that there was a power now vested in the Prime Minister which was not appropriate for these safety purposes. The noble Lord said that the Prime Minister could issue licences, but that that was not a power which could conveniently be used for the purposes which the Government had in mind.
That may be so, but it is not very satisfactory to be told that existing legislation is vague. We want to know what is wrong with it. There is now an overall power of licensing. What is the point of grafting on another system which is not so satisfactory as the existing power, since the existing power is subject to some limitation, contained in Section 10 (2)? Before we give our assent to the Bill, which, obviously, has many laudable objects, we ought to be told more about what is contemplated by the issue of these licences.
I understand that, apart from work done by the Authority, there are either under construction or planning six

nuclear power stations for the electricity boards and that there are engaged upon the erection, advising about or planning of those power stations the four consortia centring round the suppliers of heavy electrical machinery. Of course, there are other uses of atomic energy for various purposes in ordinary private industry, but the major use is in nuclear power stations, the construction of which is being undertaken by the four consortia.
So far as they have formulated their intentions, what do the Government intend to do with the licenses? Are they to be freely granted? What sort of limitations are to be imposed? Are limitations to be imposed quite apart from the safety limitations, or are there to be no limitations other than mere requirements that this, that and the other safety precaution shall be embodied in the licence? If so, is the general control over the use of atomic power in private industry to depend upon Section 10 (2)?
The answers to those questions will not necessarily result in our withholding our approval from the Bill, since it is obviously a Bill which has a very useful purpose, that of getting down at the outset to building a code of safety. However, before assenting to the Second Reading, the House should be fully informed of the Government's intention about the licences.
It has been said that they are licences which will apply merely to the site. I should have thought that the licences issued under Section 10, even though not limited to a site, could easily be adapted to permit the use of atomic energy or the installation of plant only on a particular site. That is why I am puzzled about why the Government have adopted this procedure in drafting the Bill.
I pass from that general to more specific considerations. While I entirely agree with the proposal that liability should be absolute, and that for a person whose health is injured or whose property is affected by the use of atomic power absolute liability is far more satisfactory than the common law liability, and while I agree that the limits should be extended beyond the existing three years and six years to thirty years, nevertheless I have some doubts about how the provisions as to liability will work in the context of this problem.
My doubts centre upon the use of the word "occurrence" in this context. Under Clause 3 (4), claims have to be made within thirty years of the particular occurrence, and the word "occurrence" is used. The full phrase is:
… occurrence on, or in connection with the use of, the site in question which gave rise to the claim.
There is a subsidiary provision: that if the claim is made after ten years from the occurrence, the licensee shall not be required to make a payment unless or until Parliament has made provision to secure that the amount which is necessary to satisfy the claim will be reimbursed to the licensee if he so requires.
Ordinarily, when one is considering an accident, one knows that it happened at a particular time. There is some act or happening to which one can point. I would simply pose a question to the Minister, and ask for his help on it. Is that concept so easy to apply when we are dealing with injury which may be done by atomic energy? What, for instance, is the position of a person who is injured by gradual exposure to atomic radiation?
As the Minister has said, quite categorically, the Bill is designed to apply to people who are working in these installations—as one would have hoped it would be. But what of the person who, after a period of years, loses the sight of an eye, or of a person who has a deformed child after many years, when all that can be shown is that he has worked in, or in the vicinity of, an installation? How can he point to a specific occurrence which may have given rise to his injury? All that will be known is that he was a person who might have been exposed to atomic radiation over a certain period, and that after some years his sight has become defective, or he has suffered some other dreadful misfortune.
I do not know whether hon. Members have been able to read the very frightening speech made by Lord Taylor, in another place. Lord Taylor speaks with a wealth of knowledge on these matters, and he pointed to the danger which arises when there is a leak of atomic power, or a disaster such as that which occurred at Windscale. Apparently, the major danger arises from the release of radio-strontium, but another substance—radiocaesium—may also be let loose. Those

substances have a cumulative effect, and they may operate for years and years.
The half-life of radio-strontium is twenty-eight years, which means that after twenty-eight years radio-strontium loses half its power. But it will still go on affecting any persons who are in its proximity, and over a long period of time it gives out radiation rather like a series of X-ray doses. Once that radiation has become lodged in the hard bone and has affected the marrow, after a certain stage an additional dose which would otherwise be perfectly harmless may produce a fatal result.
If a person dies of leukaemia, or one of the dreadful illnesses which this kind of exposure produces, how, in practice, are his dependants to establish that he was affected by an occurrence? There may have been no incident, such as that which occurred at Windscale, to which anybody can point. His injury may have resulted through exposure to radio-strontium over a long period. I do not know whether that is medically possible. It may not be, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us.
Even if it cannot be due to such exposure, is it not possible that leaks, or similar mishaps, may take place, which are not noticed at the time they occur? If that is possible I feel some doubt about the wisdom of hingeing the question upon a specific occurrence which can be pointed out and described as an accident. I wonder whether this will give those who may be affected by atomic radiation the requisite degree of protection. I hope that the Government will give some further thought to this matter.
I should like to throw out an idea for consideration. I wonder whether the best way to deal with this matter is not to create some presumption, and to enact that a person who has been in the area of possible radiation shall, unless the licensee can show that there is no causal connection, be presumed to have sustained his illness through atomic radiation. In Clause 5 (5) the Government have gone very near providing that. I wonder whether they should not go a little farther, as I have suggested. Clause 5 (5) provides that a person who was within a particular degree of proximity at the time of an occurence shall be able to register himself as having been there. He is not bound to register, but he is


entitled to do so, and if, in later years, there should be any bad effect upon his health, that registration will constitute proof that he was in the area at the time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): With the proviso that there may be a rebuttal of that presumption of truth.

Sir F. Soskice: I should have said that it is a proof which may be rebutted. At any rate, it is a prima facie proof.
I simply ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be desirable to go a little further, and to provide that if a person can show that he was within the area the presumption shall be that he was affected, and that if he dies of leukaemia twenty years later there shall be a presumption in favour of his relatives, and the onus shall be upon the licensee to rebut that presumption.
I suggest that the Minister might go so far as to say that even where there is no specific ascertainable occurrence, if a person can show that he was within an area of an atomic plant for a period of time there shall be a similar presumption. which would require rebuttal by the licensee. That is merely a suggestion.
I am not satisfied that the provisions concerning transit are satisfactory at present. Clause 3 (1) imposes an absolute liability upon the licensee in respect of nuclear material in transit, provided that it was irradiated on the premises in respect to which the licensee holds a licence. That absolute liability is subject to certain qualifications, and I doubt whether they are justified. If the material is being transported by ship from one part of the United Kingdom to another, so long as the harm is done while the ship is within territorial waters the liability remains absolute, as I read the Clause, but if the ship has gone just outside British territorial waters—four, five or six miles from the shore—the liability is no longer absolute unless the ship is registered on a British register.
I would ask whether that sharp differentiation between the position of a ship just inside and the position of another ship just outside territorial waters is justified. One can conceive of a shipwreck, collision, or some such accident Which may let loose the irradiated material being carried. If that should

happen, would it not be possible for trawlers or other vessels to be affected, or even for the effect to spread to the adjoining land? I do not know whether that is possible, but if it is regarded as being so—and I have in mind that the Paymaster-General has said that these things are unlikely—is it right that there should be this sharp demarcation between an absolute liability just inside and a qualified or common law liability just outside the limit of territorial waters?
I hope that the Government will think about this question again, to see whether, once it is shown that the material in question was irradiated on the premises of the licensee, his liability should remain absolute, within the terms of the Bill, for a period of thirty years, wherever the collision or other mishap occurs which lets loose irradiated material and possibly causes it to spread and affect other shipping or even adjacent land.
Although, as the Paymaster-General has said, every Clause will be examined in detail in Committee, there is one point of principle to which I want to refer. It may be said to interest me particularly, having regard to the offices which I held in an earlier Government. I refer to the question of director's liability. I notice that the present Conservative Government, by Clause 7 (1), place an absolute liability upon the directors of licensee concerns, whether nationalised concerns or private companies. The concluding words of Clause 7 (1) read:
where the body corporate was guilty of the offence in the capacity of licensee under a nuclear site licence, he"—
that is, the director—
shall be so liable as if he, as well as the body corporate, were the licensee.
If I correctly construe that language, it means that any director of one of these bodies, whether it be a private body or a nationalised industry, although he may have been at the other end of the earth when the particular offence was committed, and although he may have no knowledge of or complicity in it, nevertheless is criminally liable.
I do not say that that is wrong at all. We are here dealing with this dreadfully dangerous material, and, speaking for myself, I would say that the community is quite entitled in cases of that sort to exact a very high standard of responsibility from anybody who is responsible


for these concerns. I take it that the offences in question which are described in these words are offences which consist in the neglect of some safety precaution which is embodied as necessary in a licence. The House would agree that such safety precautions, with the terrible consequences which a breach might involve, must not at any cost be neglected. The Government are right in imposing a very high measure of responsibility on anybody who runs any concern which is licensed.
I would, however, remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that, when we sat where they sit now, and where we shall sit in June, July, or whenever the time may be, we were very severely taken to task by them when we imposed a liability on directors in the case of infringement of particular requirements, even when we gave them an opportunity of showing that they were not personally responsible, and so could escape liability. A director under this provision cannot even do that. He can say, until he is blue in the face that he knew nothing about the breach, but, nevertheless, he is criminally responsible. He may be a person who could not conceivably have known. He may have been away in Australia when the breach took place.
It may be that he could not conceivably have known anything about it, but, if I have construed that language correctly—I see that the Minister is shaking his head; I hope he will say whether I am right in the interpretation which I have put upon this provision—the man in charge of the concern would be liable. The Government would be right to take the view that we must impose an extremely high degree of responsibility in cases of this sort. People's lives and health are at stake, and legislation in this proposed new form would be justified, in my view, so that the maximum possible precautions can be taken against possible injury to persons, and particularly to health, rather than property, because of the escape of irradiated material.
A final aspect of the Bill with which I want to deal concerns the provisions as to insurance. They really are a bit odd, and I should have thought, a bit cumbersome. The Paymaster-General has said that we cannot expect an insurance company to insure somebody for ever. That may be so, but why expect an insurance

company to take this risk at all? Would it not be better to have a simple system whereby the licensee pays a contribution to the Treasury, so that public funds, in consequence, are responsible for bearing the risk?
What the Government have done is that they have had recourse to private insurance companies to carry the risk up to a limit of £5 million. I do not know what premiums are to be charged. I have no idea of the view which insurance companies take of the nature of the risk incumbent upon them if they insure against possible damage from the escape of irradiated material.
Would it not be simpler to do what I have suggested, rather than what the Government have done? They have said that private insurance companies are to insure up to a limit of £5 million, but that the licensee is to be responsible even in excess of £5 million, but, although responsible, he is not to have to pay—I wonder whether that is not a paradox in judicial language—unless and until Parliament has made arrangements that he is to be reimbursed, if he wants to be reimbursed, and he would be a very surprising licensee if he did not want to be.
Rather than have that cumbersome legislation, would it not be simpler to assess what is the appropriate contribution, premium or whatever it may be, which should be paid to some Governmental institution by persons who wish to obtain licences for the use of atomic material, and required that the licensee shall, under the conditions of the licence, make that contribution to the Treasury, and that the Treasury, or some other Governmental institution, should be responsible to pay £5 million or over to cover the loss, whatever it may be?
In another place, the Minister of Power, I think I am right in saying, said that it would be very unlikely that we would ever get a claim which did involve more than £5 million. I should have thought that the contribution which would be paid by the licensee to obtain unlimited cover would not have been much more, if any more, than what he would have to pay to get cover, whether through the Government or some private body, in respect of £5 million. I should have thought that that might be actuarially ascertainable, but I put it to the Government that, rather than enlist the services of private


insurance companies, asking them to assume this unforeseeable burden, the community as a whole should assume responsibility as a community to indemnify those who are injured as a result of this new motive power.
I put it to the Government that it would be much more safe, from the point of view of the insured person, and more satisfactory from the point of view of the licensee, as well as much more intelligible from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, if, instead of this curious dichotomy regarding the £5 million and what is to happen if the claim is above £5 million, all that were provided for in one sensible, coherent scheme, and a Government institution was designated to carry the whole amount of the loss.
I do not think that it would be of assistance to the House to examine now all the minutia of the Bill, which, speaking for myself, I would say is one which I entirely approve in principle. We shall have to examine the Bill very closely in Committee, not perhaps so much in a hostile sense as to make certain that it will work to achieve the purposes which hon. Members on both sides have in mind in hoping it will get on the Statute Book.
I would simply content myself now by saying that, obviously, what the Bill sets out to do must be achieved. It must be achieved as cheaply and efficiently, so far as the private citizen is concerned, as it can be, and it must be so comprehensive that there will not be a risk of people being left out by accident, because, for example, of the use of the word "occurrence", which may be found very difficult to fit in to a particular pattern of events when a person loses his life as a result of one of the dreadful diseases which can result from irradiation.
With those few comments, I hope that the Bill may receive a Second Reading.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. David Price: The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) directed his remarks mainly to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, and there is little that I can do except to take up one or two points which he made and which, as he rightly said, were of a rather technical nature.
There are but two points to which I wish to refer. First, I regretted the use

by the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the term "disaster" in relation to Windscale. I should have thought that the word "disaster" might have been reserved to describe some of the terrible calamities which we have experienced in the mining history of this country. To my knowledge, nobody lost his life as the result of the occurrence at Windscale. No doubt there was considerable alarm among people in the Windscale area at the time of the incident, but it is to the credit of the Atomic Energy Authority, and all the other authorities involved, that, to my certain knowledge, no lives were lost as a result of what happened at Windscale.
It is true that when Sir Alexander Fleck investigated certain complaints about the arrangements at Windscale, he found matters which he did not feel were entirely satisfactory, and he made recommendations to the effect that they should be put right. But the profligate use of the word "disaster" is unfortunate when we are discussing a whole new field of science and technology which—let us face it—is bewildering to the majority of our fellow countrymen. I think, therefore, that we must be careful about our use of language and our choice of words.
Secondly, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared excessively worried about the possibility of an employee in one of these establishments suffering from the cumulative effects of exposure to ionising radiation without there being the possibility of ascertaining why and where he had received an excessive dose.

Sir F. Soskice: I simply expressed what I thought was a possibility, at the same time expressing the hope that it was a very remote possibility. If that be so, no one will be more delighted than I. I hope that the possibility will be very unlikely.

Mr. Price: It is a question of balancing all these things. Possibly the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not so familiar as some hon. Members may be with the steps taken by the Atomic Energy Authority to ensure that such a situation does not arise.
I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the annual reports of the Authority and, in particular, the chapters on health and safety. Quite a number of hon. Members have been to


Harwell and seen the measures taken there in the health and safety division and the health physics division. In making these comments I am not seeking to join issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I mention them merely so that people who may be worried about these things can be reassured that every reasonable precaution is being taken.
I understand from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General that the standard of health and safety which has been built up by the Atomic Energy Authority will be applied by the Ministry to other establishments. In due course those who operate in this sphere under the licensing system will be compelled to lay down the same standards of health and safety as are practised at Harwell. To me, that is important, and represents one of the attractive features of the Bill.
Some hon. Members who listened to the debate in the House last Friday may regard this as a continuation of our discussion on that occasion, when some of us endeavoured to deal with the future of atomic energy in relation to our power and fuel needs. As I endeavoured to point out on Friday, nuclear energy has come of age, No longer are we dealing with a scientific possibility in the remote future. Now we are dealing with practical realities. For that reason I think that all of us will welcome the objects of the Bill, which is to license nuclear establishments and to ensure that there is adequate insurance coverage in case of accidents; although, as was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, we hope that such accidents will never happen.
To me, it seems that what we are endeavouring to do, by the provisions of the Bill, may be paralleled with what this House did many years ago upon the advent of the motor car. Parliament insisted on the licensing of motor cars, and that drivers should obtain driving licences. The House, in its wisdom, said that everyone owning a motor car must have third party insurance coverage. That is what we are endeavouring to do by this Bill in relation to nuclear energy, and it is an absolutely right thing to do. We must ensure the highest possible standards of health and safety both for employees at these establishments and for the public at large.
Secondly, there is protection against the risk of the irresponsible use of nuclear equipment or materials. As was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, the Bill goes very wide. It does not deal only with the reactors to be used for the commercial generation of electricity, but all forms of ancillary equipment. It is in that respect, far more than in the erection of nuclear power stations as such, that the danger of irresponsibility may arise. Therefore—and I believe this to be very important—the Bill provides an opportunity to reassure the public at large about something which to most of us represents a remote and rather obscure sphere of learning.
In my opinion, we in this House, and those who have any influence on national policy, will be confronted with an increasingly important problem. Our research scientists are on the frontiers of learning. So remote are their activities from the daily experience of hon. Members of this House, and even from the knowledge of scientists who may be qualified in other fields, that we have constantly to keep in mind the task of relating what is being done by these people working on the frontiers of scientific knowledge to the appreciation of the general body of the community, and reassuring the community that what is being done is for the benefit of everyone and is not harmful. That is a very difficult thing to do when we realise that those scientists working on the frontiers of knowledge have to take certain occupational hazards. The problem is to ensure that the hazards which are taken are not out of proportion to what is being attempted.
I wish to re-emphasise that we have already travelled a long way in the development of this new industry and the application of nuclear physics to human use, without, to my knowledge, suffering one single death. That is directly attributable to advances which have been made in this sphere of knowledge. There may have been fatalities, but I am not aware of them. When comparing the safety record in the nuclear field with the records of other and older industries in this country, one is prompted to think how wonderful it would be if we could say that there had been no fatalities in the whole industry of British coal mining; if there had been no


fatalities in the development of the iron and steel industry, or during the building of our railways. Hon. Members may think that I am tempting fate with these comments. But even so, I think that the record of this industry is one which merits praise and congratulations from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
In the Fleck Report on "The Organisation of Control of Health and Safety in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority", which was published in January last year, it is stated, in paragraph 5:
The public may be assured, however, that the precautions which are applied are extremely elaborate; the underlying conception is to aim to err on the side of caution and, within the limits of existing knowledge, no chances are taken.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, I have a few reservations about the definitions contained in Clause 1 (1, a) and (1, b) of the Bill. I should like to see the wording of paragraph (a) broadened because at present it makes no mention of the thermo-nuclear fusion reaction which can definitely emit ionising radiation. We have two pieces of experimental equipment with which work is carried out along those lines—Zeta, at Harwell, and Sceptre III, at the A.E.I. establishment at Aldermaston. Those of us who are optimistic about the progress to be expected in this sphere hope that one day we shall have nuclear fusion reactors working as power stations to generate electricity commercially.
In subsection (1, b) of Clause 1, I should like to see the wording narrowed to exclude sub-critical assemblies. As at present worded, it could be inhibiting to some of the marginal research activities and applications of nuclear physics. My second comment—again it is more in the nature of a question than a statement of opinion—is that I am a little unhappy about the maximum limit of £5 million as the amount of coverage, when one considers it in relation to university research departments.
In the speech of my right hon. Friend there was a hint that this would not apply in that case. I hope that it will be so. I ask the House whether there would not have been a considerable restriction on the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge during the 1920s and the

1930s had it been necessary for that laboratory to find this amount of coverage, even on a very low premium, perhaps as low as 0·2 per cent. Even at that figure it would have been a rather heavy outlay for a university physics department.
As this is a Second Reading debate, I would allow my comments to go a little wider and to refer to the problem of administrative responsibility for health and safety in the nuclear field. I believe that we are in danger of having too many Government Departments involved. The time has come when a policy decision has to be made. I would draw the attention of the House to paragraph 21 of the Fleck Report, which says:
Control of health and safety in the atomic energy field is of great importance, and a number of Government Departments are concerned with it. The Atomic Energy Office is concerned with the ministerial responsibility for atomic energy, which is at present vested in the Prime Minister himself; the Ministry of Labour and National Service has specific responsibility for questions of occupational health and safety in premises subject to the Factories Acts; the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have responsibilities for environmental aspects of public health (clean water, clean air, etc.); the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport for questions arising from the transport of radioactive and toxic materials; the Ministry of Health for hazards arising from the medical use of radioactive substances and apparatus producing radiation; and the Office of the Lord President has responsibilities in relation to the work of the medical and agricultural research Councils.
The Fleck Report did not include the Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that even the Minister of Works has been using radioactive isotopes at Stonhenge. It seems that every Department comes into this field. That is not a very happy state of affairs, particularly in a new field. The House should be concerned to avoid the application of "Parkinson's Law" to the nuclear industry. It seems a good opportunity to leave that gentleman behind. I would ask my right hon. Friend where will he find his inspectors. His licensing system depends upon having sufficient inspectors.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Gentleman has posed the problem of divided Ministerial responsibility. Can he give the House his own solution of that problem?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me. I think that I should be


over-running the patience of the Chair if I went into the aspect of the matter, nor do I think it is appropriate that I should answer the question. My right hon. Friend has more public responsibility than I have for these matters. I should be delighted to give the hon. Gentleman an answer on some other Occasion. I must not speak now at very great length. Your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is always great, but I believe that even that has its limit.
I was referring to the problem of finding a sufficient number of qualified men and I would draw the attention of the House to the remarkable speech made on this subject by Professor Windeyer, Dean of Middlesex Hospital Medical School, to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. In the course of that speech, Professor Windeyer said:
Then there is the whole question of inspectorate. It is all very well to have a code of practice and to have local rules, but how are they going to be enforced? We cannot have inspectors in every department and in every small factory?
Later, he said:
The administrative problems are quite new, and possibly the necessary measures will not be most efficiently carried out under the old patterns of work and with the old traditions. More trained people are needed, and some of these must be of really high quality and with training of the Ph.D. standard. For the last ten years the few people who are really knowledgeable about these matters have been greatly over-burdened, and the same people have appeared on almost every committee dealing with these matters. This lack of adequately qualified men is one of the biggest problems in the health and safety field at present.
I would like some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that the Government are thinking about this problem.
The Fleck Report had a considerable amount to say about the shortage of qualified people. I would refer the House to paragraphs 93 and 94 of the Report, where this is stated:
We are in no doubt that the health and safety field should be made an attractive career for people able to acquire the necessary expertise.
How are we to train them? Should they have a basic medical training? Should we take physicists and biologists, and train them?
Paragraph 95 of the Fleck Report recognises the inadequacy of the present system, and says:
The main instruction in the United Kingdom on the health and safety problems of

atomic energy has hitherto been given by the Authority as part of their courses in the Reactor and Isotope Schools at Harwell and the Reactor operations Schools attached to Calder Hall.
Those who are familiar with this subject will know how short we are of the Ph.D.s that the Fleck Report and Professor Windeyer would like to see.
Do the Government intend to do any-think about Recommendation XI of the Fleck Report, which is in these terms:
We recommend that the Atomic Energy Authority should establish a national training centre for health physics and nuclear safety staff (under the administration and general supervision of the Research Group). Courses should be graduated to suit all levels. They should cover not only problems of protection against radiation hazards, but also the health and safety aspects of the use of isotopes in medicine, agriculture and industry.
It is true that a committee has been set up under the chairmanship of Sir Douglas Veale to make recommendations as to the numbers to be trained and the methods of training, but we cannot but agree with Professor Windeyer, when he comments:
It seems obvious that one of the first tasks will be to arrange for an adequate number of trainers to be trained. There are not enough expert personnel available to carry out the training programme which would appear to be necessary. At present the Atomic Energy Authority is the main source of knowledge, but it must be considered whether some other independent source of knowledge should not also be available. It is not a good principle to have such knowledge as a monopoly which would have to act both as judge and jury.
The time has come for at least one of our medical schools, or appropriate university department, to go into this matter of a health physics degree. Perhaps I am pleading from a special point of view, being a governor of the Middlesex Hospital, in thinking that no better place to do that could be found than our own medical school at the Middlesex, but I would not cavil if it went to St. Thomas's, Guy's, or any other of our great medical schools. We must tackle advanced teaching in health and safety in nuclear physics at one of the universities. It is—

Mr. Roy Mason: The hon. Gentleman has been pointing out the weaknesses of the Bill. I agree with him that there is not sufficient qualified personnel. How does he reconcile what he is now saying with his previous remark that he is pleased with the Bill? The Bill gives private enterprise the "Go ahead"


for building new installations, yet the State itself cannot provide sufficient qualified personnel to do the job.

Mr. Price: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not always drag political issues of a partisan character into health and safety.

Mr. Mason: This is a political debating chamber.

Mr. Price: What I am advocating does not conflict with the Atomic Energy Authority. I maintain that the State should provide inspectors. Because we have factory inspectors, that is not a reason for nationalising all the factories. We are trying to set up a system of licensing and inspection, but that does not mean that nobody but the State should take any part in nuclear engineering.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Reverting to the point that the hon. Member was making about the rôle of special departments in universities or establishments of advanced research dealing with health physics—about which I am not objecting—would he agree that it is still necessary, and will be increasingly necessary, for the actual organisations themselves—the Atomic Energy Authority, for instance—to do, if not all, at least most of the preparatory training of the students who will go on to those special departments? What I am afraid of is that there might be an argument for confining that training to academic establishments.

Mr. Price: I must not have made myself clear. I was supporting strongly the views of the Fleck Report that we need more health physics work at Harwell, but the problem must be tackled on an even wider scale. The courses at Harwell vary from four to six weeks, but the type of training I want to be done is the hard core training, which probably would take two or three years as a minimum after obtaining a medical degree. That is the kind of training of which I am talking.
We cannot expect Harwell to do that. The quotation from Professor Windeyer's Report suggested up to Ph.D. standard as a minimum of post-graduate work. These things are amicable to each other and, in fact, are complementary, but I am sure the hon. Member would agree that today we should emphasise the complete

absence of basic training in health physics. Even after a person has finished his work in a post-graduate medical school, I would expect him to go on to further training in the field.
Unless we have a hard core of specialists who really know their subject and are prepared to administer it, whether under the Bill, helping my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power within the atomic energy establishment, or in private industry, we shall not be able to meet our needs. If the Bill is to have any practical meaning we must provide them.
It is with that important reservation that I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill. We hope that it will work out as they have intended. However, it would be dishonest if I did not emphasise that I am disturbed at the absence of sufficient health physicists and the lack of any arrangements to make up that deficiency.

Sir F. Soskice: Before the hon. Member sits down, will he allow me to say that I entriely agree with him about the undesirability of any language I used magnifying in any way the danger of injury from gradual exposure? I did not mean to imply it and I have no doubt that it is minimal. I am very conscious of the elaborate precautions taken to avoid it and I am sure such a danger is very small indeed.

Mr. Price: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Member. He will appreciate that I was not criticising him personally, but I was anxious that a false impression should not go out. Whereas, when the right hon. and learned Member speaks, his speech is reported fully in the Press, when humble back benchers like myself speak our speeches are not fully reported, We would be rather embarrassed if they were.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: What I have to say will be very relevant to the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). I think the Bill is weak. It lacks sufficient strength and will not have sufficient direction and control over the private enterprise installations which are to be built.
I am perturbed about three factors, first, safety; secondly, the insurance limit and the period of cover; and thirdly, the green light which the Bill gives to private


enterprise to go ahead and to build nuclear power installations. I think this is really a job for the State. We have our basic industries of fuel and power already State-owned and controlled—coal, gas and electricity—and the Government are encouraging imports of fuel oil, which is undermining the strength and morale of our basic industries at home. They are allowing the Atomic Energy Authority to develop in this fashion and nuclear installations creep in by private enterprise. That will make impossible any chance for a Government of this country, irrespective of its political colour, to devise fuel and power policy for the benefit of the nation

Mr. Farey-Jones: Does the hon. Member realise that in the next ten or fifteen years almost every ship will be a nuclear reactor? Is he suggesting that the State should take them all over as well?

Mr. Mason: I am talking about precisely what is in the Bill. The Bill steers clear of ships and aircraft and reactors contained therein.

Mr. Richard Fort: Can the hon. Member give the reference, because I cannot find it?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give the reference, but, having read the Bill, I am quite certain that it does not refer to nuclear power installations in ships and aircraft. I should be obliged if the Minister on the Front Bench would settle the point. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would insist that I am quite correct.

Sir I. Horobin: That is so.

Mr. Mason: Having satisfied many of the antagonists who are now belching forth their fumes from the other side of the House, I may continue. The atomic energy consortia of private enterprise industrialists have been spending great sums of money in research and many are feeling that the Government have misled them. They were to build 19 atomic power stations, but now the Government have reduced the programme and they are to have 14 or 12 and, therefore, they are dismayed. After the investment they have poured into this work, they are feeling that they have been taken in.
Secondly, they thought the market in Euratom would help, but, because of the lackadaisical procedures of the Govern-

ment, the Americans have spoiled the chances of our atomic industrialists and are gaining a foothold. What I am particularly worried about is that because of the terrific amount of investment which has taken place and the little return the investors now see compared with what they envisaged, the safety of the people concerned—the workers and the public—may be in danger. I am worried about the protection of workers in nuclear plants and the protection of the public.
The use of atomic energy has two forms of risk. There is external radiation from rays which are the most insidious in form because they cannot be detected by the senses. One cannot smell or feel them. Unless armed with a geiger counter, one has no knowledge of their presence. Then there is internal radiation by ingestive or respiratory means. Workers run the risk at work, and the public, either by pollution of the atmosphere or through disposal of atomic waste, through breathing polluted air or consuming radioactive substances.
The classic example and grim reminder was the Windscale accident. I did not regard it as a disaster, but it was an accident. We had not had sufficient experience at that time of the release of nuclear energy and obviously from that accident many lessons have been learned. What was most noticeable was that the escape, in the main, was of radio-iodine. That affected crops, milk from the cows, and human beings. We have had a recent example of a Cumberland farmer worrying about the sterility of his cattle.
I wonder if the Minister has given any thought to this problem which arises out of the Windscale accident. We are querying the period of cover of thirty years mentioned in the Bill. Before the use of milk produced in the Windscale area was banned after the accident, many hours elapsed and in that time many children and their parents and many expectant mothers may have consumed some of that milk with radio-iodine content. Those babies will be living in the same region, will probably marry people who as children lived throughout that period and in thirty years' time may have children of their own.
Although there is no proof at this stage that the accident has been responsible for any danger, there is no proof to the contrary, and I challenge the Parliamentary


Secretary to prove to me, when he replies, that the generations of children born during the period of the radio-iodine escape from Windscale will not be subject to genetic mutation or change. There is that possibility, and that is why, first, I aim not in favour of a thirty years' cover in these nuclear installation plants. I think the limit should be far greater than that. In fact, I think there should be no limit.
Secondly, we had recently an accident in our research laboratories. We have had many, of course, of a very minor type. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh so rightly said, we have been very fortunate. We have developed a nuclear industry in this country, a vital, dynamic industry, which has had very few accidents compared with the industries of coal, railways and steel. What is more important is that it has been much safer than similar industries abroad. There have been far fewer accidents in this country than in America. Nevertheless, we must take heed of the accidents that we have had.
There was an accident recently where in one of the sealed operating boxes containing highly radioactive substance a leak appeared and some of the workers were affected by radiation. I do not know how many were affected or what was their sex. In many of these nuclear installations, in private enterprise research or Atomic Energy Authority Installations, young men and women would be employed, teenagers just leaving college. They would be at their most vital and productive age and they would be receiving these leakages of radiation. The majority of those young men and women will marry and the children born to them may, in fact, be affected.
Those are the dangers, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider once again the thirty years' cover as provided for in the Bill. The safeguards may be stringent, but these accidents do happen. Safety levels must be strictly observed both inside and outside nuclear plants, and also with regard to the radioactive pollution of air and water by the so-called controlled discharges.
Is the House satisfied before we agree to the Bill that nuclear installations run by private companies will be made safe both before and during their operations? I think that we ought to consider the factors involved before the nuclear in-

stallation is built as well as during its operation. First, there is the choice of a site. There is always an attempt to find an area where there is a limited population so that not many people will be harmed in the immediate vicinity owing to atmospheric pollution, and, in the case of chemical processing plants, through pollution by waste.
The first is a worrying feature. We try to find an area that has a very limited population. Then there is required a study of the meteorological, hydrological and demographic factors of the region concerned. All these factors are absolutely essential. I am querying them all because I cannot see that a private enterprise nuclear installator will be able himself to be responsible for all these conditions.
As regards the meteorological aspect of the matter, it is essential prior to the installation of a reactor that there should be detailed information about wind and temperatures and particularly about local factors such as local atmospheric stagnation. In the case of Windscale, once the survey of the meteorological factors in the region had been completed, it would have been possible quite quickly for the people who had done the survey and who were responsible for the research to have estimated how high the radio-iodine content would have gone in the atmosphere and in which direction the plume of radio-iodine would have gone down the country. As we all know, London was blanketed with a high degree of radio-iodine following the accident. That is how important the survey is.
Regarding hydrological research, we must have an understanding of the conditions of river and sea beds before erecting chemical processing plants because of the discharge of aqueous radioactive substances. The team responsible for the research must have a knowledge of the currents and river levels and must know what chances there are of contaminating aquatic flora and fauna. Drinking water, too, must be subject to a special study.
As far as demographic research is concerned, it is most essential before a nuclear installation is erected that we should have statistics covering the local population regarding health and disease in connection with births and deaths. This should be done irrespective of the type of plant which is to be built.
This preliminary task is in itself a colossal one, and I query whether private enterprise is able to do the job satisfactorily. The Windscale accident taught us many lessons. This has been outlined in the Fleck Report on health and safety which has been mentioned many times in the course of this debate. It talks about the internal workings, need for more supervision and the use of more instrumentation. For the first time it made us conscious of the contamination of third parties.
Our record of workers' safety is good, but what about this question of third parties? The danger to them consists in the small amounts of maximum radioactivity which are stored in suitable places in the form of solid residue or of larger amounts of radioactive substances dispersed in air or water in such a manner that maximum permissible concentrations should not be exceeded.
That brings to my mind many concentrations of fissile materials, large and small, used in bomb making, and the use of radio isotopes and substances used in medicine, agriculture and industry. Then there is the question of the dumping of radioactive waste in rivers or on the shores of our island, or even in the sea. What a task it is to keep all this radioactive material under control. There is no demarcation line. Industry generally will soon be riddled with it.
What hope is there of private enterprise evolving a system of control and inspection of all these processes to stop contamination of the public? As I say, this is a colossal task and one which must be controlled by a body primarily responsible to the Government. It should not be farmed out in this fashion to private enterprise. For workers, individual control is necessary. For the public, unless there is a serious accident, collective control is most essential. Safety standards in and around private nuclear installations must not be low.
There must be sufficient monitors inside the plant, and medical and clinical examinations for the workers. There must be chains of detecting apparatus available to check the level of radioactivity around the plant, and regular samples must be taken in all waters to check the danger of aqueous discharges. A watch must be kept on drinking water, and care-

fully chosen biological samples should be analysed periodically. There must also be a general and continuous survey of the land to check contamination of the food chain—drinking water, vegetables, livestock and milk. I doubt whether private enterprise can match the safety standards already set by the State.
There is a document from which should like to quote. I have not been able to get the document itself, but I have here certain quotations which appear in a book I managed to obtain. It refers to work by the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy in the United States, and quotes from the Final Report on Financial Protection against Atomic Hazards:
The magnitude of public liability is such that it cannot be covered by private insurance alone.
The book goes on to say:
In the meantime the American insurance companies formed themselves into three pools (100 or more companies in each) and were able to offer in respect of any one incident 65 million dollars for property damage and a like amount for third party liability.
That makes the £5 million in this Bill look very sick.
At the same time, they urged the government to make stringent regulations as to safety in respect of any licence allowed to private industry for reactor construction and operation. They fear that 'safe operating procedures may not he observed under private operation with less experienced personnel'.
There has been sufficient experience already in the United States, and this committee put forward what, in my view, is conclusive evidence, taking all these factors into consideration, for saying that private enterprise cannot match the job which the State is doing even already.
In Clause 6 (1) it is provided that
The Minister may appoint as inspectors to assist him in the execution of this Act such number of persons appearing to him to be qualified for the purpose, as he may from time to time consider necessary or expedient.
On the other hand, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, he will have great difficulty in doing this. In paragraph 93 of its Report, the Fleck Committee specifically mentions the staffing problem and says:
It will be seen … that the health and safety organisation of the Authority is called upon to perform a wide variety of duties, both internally and externally. Many of these duties require expert qualifications in more than one of the fields of medicine, radiology,


health physics, mathematics, nuclear physics, or nuclear engineering. There is an acute shortage of people possessing the requisite qualifications and we regard this as one of the most important points that has emerged from our review. Throughout the Authority there are only about 90 staff possessing honours degrees or equivalent qualifications who are engaged full time on the control of health and safety. They are therefore seriously overburdened.
I cannot emphasise too strongly those last two words, "seriously overburdened". This is the weakness of the Bill. The Minister will not be able to appoint qualified personnel or as many inspectors as he would like to keep pace with the rapid development of our atomic energy industry.
What about further complications? All these must be taken into consideration. There are areas of the country where background radiation is above the average, mainly because of 'the geological factors of the region which give rise to higher radiation than the normal. I understand that no survey of the country has been completed. I have been informed by Ministers on various occasions that the Medical Research Council is surveying some of these regions in order to ascertain exactly what the effect is upon people there. We ought to be able to have this information quickly. How have births and deaths been affected? What has been the incidence of leukaemia in those districts? What has been the incidence of bone cancer, premature births, abnormal children born, and so forth? These areas having high background radiation might have the required rock formation and be near the coast and, therefore, attract a private nuclear installation. A high background radiation plus what is termed a safe discharge from a nuclear installation could bring them to the marginal level or even the danger level.
We know from our experience that the radioactive fall-out from bomb tests has been such that it is registering itself in the hills of Wales and Scotland, where there is a higher percentage of strontium 90 and radio active caesium than elsewhere. We have already ascertained that the strontium 90 in the air in 1956 was six times greater than it was in 1954, and in 1957 it was seven and a half times greater than it was in 1954. We may, therefore, find that, near a hilly region

where the radioactivity is greater from radioactive fall-out, it is proposed to build a nuclear station. There may be a combination of all three factors. I am taking an extreme example, but we must err on the side of safety, as the Fleck Report repeatedly says. It is quite possible that, because of the geological terrain, a nuclear power station may be built in an area where nuclear radiation is above average and, it being a hilly region, there is a high strontium 90 level as a result of radioactive fall-out from atom bomb and hydrogen bomb tests. That is an extreme example, but it is something which must be borne in mind. All these are factors which ought to be taken into consideration.
I come now to the matter of insurance itself. The insurance we are now considering is a natural development. A new technical advance is being applied to industry, and private insurers want quickly to step in. Let us look at the matter from the insurers' point of view. What are the risks? Here, we are in great difficulty. This new form of power, nuclear energy, burst upon the world with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. People recoiled in horror, and the result was that the files of information were buried and few people got to know the dangers and risks involved in the development of this new form of power. The whole matter was shrouded in secrecy. It was not until 1955, when the Geneva Conference was held, that the peaceful potential of these developments was fully realised. Because of the form of its initial introduction to the world, vital files have remained closed, and the insurers have not been fully conversant with all the data. The risks are not fully known.

Mr. Maudling: I ought to make it clear that the risks we are here considering are not the risks of atomic explosion in any way; that could not possibly take place in these reactors.

Mr. Mason: I quite appreciate that. That is quite logical, and I accept, of course, that the nuclear installations we are here discussing, whether privately controlled or State controlled, cannot blow up. We shall not have a Hiroshima or Nagasaki all over again. The point is, however, that, because this form of power came into being for warlike purposes, many of the files containing information on the dangers and risks entailed in its


development have been kept closed. As a result, insurers will not be fully conversant with some of the risks because they are not, in fact, fully known.
The few statistics available on dangers and risks of radioactivity, valuable though they are, are based on the work of but a few qualified people and on experience which may well prove too short. Data on the incidence of delayed biological change will be an important factor from the insurance point of view. I doubt whether sufficient time has elapsed or sufficient experience has been gained to come to such definite conclusions as are contained in the Bill. Furthermore, it may well prove extremely difficult to find experienced, specialist personnel to compile the data as the industry grows. This, again, as the Fleck Report constantly reminds us, will be a weakness.
Thirdly—this is extremely important—physicists, chemists, biologists and geneticists cannot agree upon nor accurately assess the effects of radiation on human beings, animals, and plant and marine life. Neither can chemists or engineers know or be fully conversant with the effect of this new form of energy on many kinds of materials. It is said in the Government White Paper, A Programme of Nuclear Power, paragraph 15:
There is as yet no practical experience of this level of irradiation at high temperatures and the metallurgical behaviour of the fuel elements is uncertain. But there are many lines of development which should overcome such metallurgical defects as may appear.
Even now, and quite apart from the effects on human beings and plant life, the effects on metals are unknown. The risks are unknown. Although there is a promising sentence at the end, which I have read, at the moment the radiation risks in respect of human beings and metals are quite unknown.
What has been most serious for insurers is that no threshold level of safety could be agreed upon until a short time ago. Even now, many biologists and physicians doubt this safety level. It is on this uncertain basis that insurers are setting up a cover for new, and many of them unexplored, risks—at a time when nuclear fission and the use of rays from radioactive substances are becoming increasingly industrialised. It is questionable whether insurers have ever before faced such problems.
Because of these points, insurance should be both greater in sum and unlimited in time. The State, too, should accept its responsibility. If a person is injured by radiation, someone is to blame; but under the suggested pattern of the Bill only legal wriggling can result, to the detriment of the injured person. It is the duty of the State to protect the public, and the State should accept this responsibility. If the Government are not prepared to go as far as that, then at least the sum involved of £5 million and the cover period of thirty years should be reviewed.
These are the main points of the Bill. First, having been assured that the building of nuclear installations is to be done by private enterprise, insurance steps into the field. In my opinion, both should be done by the State—both the building of all nuclear power plants and the acceptance of insurance risks. Secondly, dealing with the safety aspect of this development, I still question whether private enterprise can give us the standards which we require.
Accidents have made us acutely aware of radiation dangers. Safety is therefore very much in the forefront of our minds. If standards are maintained, we can rest assured that this new and vital industry will be developed for the good of humanity and with the minimum of danger to both workers and the public. This, to me, is a job for the State. I sincerely hope that we do not live to regret the decisions which we are making today in giving the green light to private enterprise and insurance.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: In following the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) I find myself, as I presume he expects, in little agreement with him, apart from his comment that chemists, engineers, technologists and doctors have to learn much more about many of the effects of radiation and of the particles which they have to handle. In my experience, they show less certainty than does the hon. Member for Barnsley in knowing the answers to many of the questions which he posed to the House.
He made such a wide, shotgun attack on the Bill, the Government and the development of the industry that it is difficult to know quite where to begin answering him. One point, however, is worth


reference. He gave what I thought was a dramatic account of what happened at Windscale and of the horrors of the emission of radioactive iodine and the effect which it might have on future generations. It may be some comfort at least to those who were exposed to the fall-out of radioactive iodine—in quantities scarcely more than the natural background of radioactivity—to know that in fact half of this had disappeared in eight days, which was the half-life of iodine 131, and that it had disappeared virtually altogether well inside a fortnight or three weeks. We must keep a sense of proportion in these matters, and bear some figures in mind, although at times they are rather complicated.
I welcome the Bill, which I think is a sign of the development of the industry—not only of the application of large quantities of nuclear energy to generating power to which I think the hon. Member for Barnsley mostly turned his attention, but also the more academic applications, both in the use of research reactors and in the very large and important use of radioactive isotopes in every kind of scientific research.
My right hon. Friend explained with his customary clarity the reason why we should have the Bill, and I failed to see some of the difficulties in which the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) seemed to find himself. I thought it was fairly clear that what we were doing primarily was laying down the conditions in which insurance policies can be taken out to protect those who may be affected by radiation resulting either from long exposure or, more likely, from an unhappy incident.
Nevertheless, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions of detail. For reasons which my right hon. Friend explained, the Government Departments and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority are excluded. In view of the fact that hospitals are presumably regarded as Government Departments—I think this point was mentioned by the noble Lord in another place—may I ask whether the medical schools are included under hospitals? They are part of the universities, although they work in the hospitals and use large quantities of radioactive isotopes in their research work,

just as the hospitals use them either for research or for therapeutic purposes.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport commented on the wide drafting of Clause 1. I very much hope that my hon. Friend today, and certainly in Committee, will indicate that he can accept some Amendments so that we may have more precise definitions in Clause 1 (1, a) and 1 (1, b). For example, in Clause 1 (1, a) we should limit the reference to apparatus which does not require the supply of external sources of neutrons in order to operate this is the self-sustaining reactor which I think the Bill was intended to cover. Similarly, I hope that my hon. Friend will be prepared to accept Amendments to Clause 1 (1, b) which would exclude the large number of ancillary materials and equipment which do not give out radiation but are closely concerned with the production of nuclear energy—for instance, the materials out of which the "cans" are made.
In line 18 on page 1 there is a reference to the licence being "in respect of that site". Does that mean that the whole factory in which the apparatus stands will have to be licensed or will the provision be the same as in the Clean Air Act, 1957 or in the Alkali Acts? That is a more precise definition which has worked out well in those Acts and is well understood in law.
The hon. Member for Barnsley took an unusually gloomy view of the difficulties of the insurance industry, most of which, if not overcome, have at least been sorted out in a rational way so that what we know and what we do not know is fairly well recognised. I think that his account of difficulties arising from the fact that information was not revealed, because of the atomic energy work done behind the security curtain, was over-dramatised. Certainly, Lloyds have great experience with first-rate engineers in charge of their work, fully able to assess the information which is available. In spite of what the hon. Member said, all that is needed for an assessment is available.

Mr. Mason: How does the hon. Member reconcile that with his opening comments, when he said that there were physicians and geneticists who cannot now agree upon how the mutation rate will be changed by radioactivity?

Mr. Fort: What I said about Lloyds' technical advisers to the insurance companies was that they knew enough to be able to decide what are reasonable rates of insurance and premium under present circumstances. In this, as in other spheres of insurance, change will obviously be necessary as more experience is gained.
In that connection, I should like to touch on a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) mentioned. Five million pounds seems a large sum of money to have to cover for the small reactors which will be used largely in universities. It seems unfortunate that some method of escalation, perhaps having a lower maximum for the smaller reactors, cannot be devised. I imagine that we shall be relying on the insurance companies to cut down their premiums to a level consonant with the smaller risk which includes the smaller power, but in view of the fact that with these small reactors, after a short time—a matter of within twelve hours—we are beginning to see a very large diminution of radioactivity and after a week there will be no more radioactivity inside them than the radioactivity in the stores of isotopes in a great many laboratories and works, I hope that the insurance companies will take a reasonable view about the premiums demanded.
My last point is to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to take this opportunity to make an official announcement about the studies that are being undertaken by the Government into the supply and training of inspectors. I will not labour the various points—they have been discussed already by my hon. Friend and hon. Members opposite—but it would be of some comfort to people outside if we could have a coherent account of what is being done. Much is being done and a number of people know some of it, but a coherent account would be very helpful to those of us who are interested in this work.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: It is difficult to discuss the Bill on Second Reading without losing oneself altogether in a thicket of Committee points or technical facts. In the short while that I intend to address the House, I hope to keep out in the open.
In opening the debate today, the Paymaster-General kept saying that the risk

of any leak of radioactive material in a nuclear power installation was slight indeed. He then said that it was remote. Then, he used yet another phrase to describe his feelings on possible dangers and the advice given to him. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman gave us so many assurances that at the end of it all I very nearly ceased to believe him.
I can claim to have lived much of my life among technical experts. The truth about them is that they are fallible. They are probably not as fallible as politicians, but one does not expect a very high standard of consistency from politicians. The difference with experts is that, because they are experts, we tend to expect too much of them and just occasionally they fail us. Therefore, with the greatest respect to all the expert advice which has been given to the Paymaster-General, I ask him and others to rememberd that in discussing this new kind of industrial risk we are moving into an altogether fresh field. It is a new kind of risk.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) talked about accidents in the mining industry and drew the attention of the House to the many disasters which have occurred. He referred to the great risks necessarily associated with the steel industry and said that, in comparison, what had happened at Windscale and what had occurred in the short history of our nuclear energy industry was slight indeed. That may well be the case. What troubles many hon. Members and many people outside, however, is that most existing industrial risks are at least obvious and predictable up to a point, but this new kind of industrial risk that we are discussing today is not tangible and the hazards involved are not immediately plain. The effect upon the individual may be slow to reveal itself. It may not be a specific injury, but it may drastically shorten the life of the unfortunate person or persons involved.
Another contrast that we should remember between this new kind of risk and the conventional industrial risk is that the latter is usually confined to particular premises and operations, whereas the potential radioactive hazard which will be associated with nuclear installations, power stations and the like, will be indiscriminate and no respecter of boundaries. Those who work on the plant or go about their business nearby are all alike in possible jeopardy. For this


reason, the House should not view these matters lightly merely because the Paymaster-General has had the best expert advice and that advice tells him that the dangers are slight indeed.
Knowing that we were moving into this new field, I should have thought that the Government would respond accordingly with legislation of a broader and more far-reaching character than what I will describe as this rather reach-me-down commercial little Bill that we are considering today. I allow, of course, that the Bill is much better now than when first introduced into the other place, because it was a fairly poor effort at that stage, but although it has been improved by noble Lords in the other place, justifying, perhaps, at last the creation of life peers, we are still left with the feeling that any Ministerial thinking which has been done in this matter has been rather hurried and of a recent character.
There is no excuse for that. The proposal for a nuclear power programme was looked at in 1955, when we had the first White Paper—the ideas must have been got out long beforehand—and amplified in 1957. We had to wait, however, until, I will not call it the Windscale disaster, because that is not a fashionable expression but, at least, we had to wait for the Windscale incident to jog the Minister of Power into any kind of action.
It is said that this incident at Wind-scale will not occur elsewhere. I would like to think that was the case. However, I would point out that, so far, the nuclear installations in this country have been relatively few and of a wartime and postwar character. In addition, they have been of a special research nature. In the future, nuclear installations, such as those of the Central Electricity Generating Board, will become commonplace industrial arrangements. That is to ignore—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) was right to emphasise the point—the reactors which will be constructed for the use of private industry. I do not quarrel with that, but at the same time there will not be the opportunity for careful, scientific check which there has been so far in the installations of the Atomic Energy Authority.
Let us look ahead. Twenty years from now, with the great growth in the use of electric power, with consumption doubling

every 7 to 10 years, nuclear power stations will be a familiar sight on nearly every horizon in the country and the people of the United Kingdom will not just have nuclear stations: in this crowded island they will live among nuclear power stations, and we shall have to add to the sure defences of British people, in both intention and fact, the thickness of the concrete of their reactors.
The Bill devotes most of its attention, on the assumptions which the Government make, to providing for licensing of reactors and providing also for a system of insurance for reactors. These issues have been dealt with already in the debate, the legal issues notably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and, no doubt, we shall come to them again in later speeches, if this debate continues long enough, and certainly in considerable detail in Committee. For my part, I want to keep to the theme of safety.
The Paymaster-General, in opening the debate, told us quite correctly that Clause 1 states that the Minister, when granting a licence, may impose conditions as he thinks fit for safety. Presumably he also has the power to recruit the expert staff who are necessary for the technical work. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the debate so far have emphasised the difficulty of the recruitment of the technical staff.
That brings me to my principal criticism of this Measure. As drafted, it tends to make the prevention of injury and damage and the obligation to ensure safety from the outset a rather secondary consideration. The Bill tends to deal more with the effects of what may happen in the future if something goes wrong rather than to make an all-round effort to prevent such occurrences from happening at all. I think that safety should have been the entire basis of the Bill. That should have been its prime objective.
Because the risks connected with nuclear plant in industry and elsewhere are of such a different character from the conventional risks in industry, there is a case to be looked at for the establishment of an independent statutory body, a nuclear safety council, so to say, with its own disinterested staff. That would not be the kind of organisation the Minister referred to today, just an advisory council, but an independent


statutory body. To that body it would be possible for all the interests affected, including the trade unions and the local public, to make representations without having to go to employers or Government Departments.
I do not think it is really sufficient in this matter simply to give Departmental powers to a Minister, because, after all, in the nationalisation Acts it is the Minister of Power who is, in the ultimate sense, an interested party in the operation of nuclear power stations. He may, I do not know, feel under an obligation to defend the Central Electricity Generating Board if a mishap occurs.
I think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh helped the House a great deal when he drew our attention to the already complicated enough administrative situation in Government circles in relation to nuclear safety. There are, as he said, some eight separate Government Departments all having some kind of responsibility. I shall not bore the House by referring to them all separately, but it is really extraordinary that we should now be proceeding towards the creation of a ninth Departmental responsibility in this matter of nuclear safety. Is there not, therefore, at least something in the argument that there is real need for the creation now of an independent statutory body which could really look after nuclear safety in the broadest sense?
I think that another reason for giving greater emphasis in the Bill to positive safety measures is the special position of employees of all grades in nuclear plants. I can say, as I think hon. Members know, that I have certain connections with those who work and who will have to work in the nuclear power plants of this country. It is true—and I was glad that the Paymaster-General emphasised it again today—that employees are covered by the compensation Clauses of the Bill. That is only evenly balanced justice, because, when all is said and done, once nuclear processes become common I should think that those nearest to the reactors have the biggest risk, and those who in their daily work are obviously nearest to the reactors are the employees in the plants. One is glad to know that they are to have at least the same protection as the general public in the matter of compensation.
It is stated in many places, including medical circles, that we all, as human beings, have a limited safety margin in the amount of radioactivity that we can safely absorb. There is a margin, and we live within that margin. I believe that a little radioactivity is part of our nature and is good for us, but if we have too much it is a very different story altogether. Almost anywhere on the globe today, in this twentieth century, we are all living subject not only to various natural forms of radioactivity but to a little added by the various medical processes through which we have to go from time to time. On top of that there are nuclear bomb explosions which affect us—a little, at any rate.
All this is true of all citizens, but those who work in the nuclear plants will have, so it seems to me, that little bit extra; or at any rate they will run the risk of getting that little bit extra. Therefore, they deserve some special attention. It would be very unfair if, amid the blessings which power from nuclear energy is likely to give us all, the risks of the nuclear age had to be borne by just a few—those working in the plants.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that those responsible are looking very carefully at the practical aspects of safety in the nuclear power stations which are now being constructed by the Central Electricity Generating Board. I am told, and I believe it to be the case, that, in certain circumstances, if something goes wrong as a result of a leak in the reactor, the only way to ensure the safety and even the lives of employees is for them to be withdrawn from the plant immediately and without hesitation. That can be done fairly easily without trouble in a research establishment. But it is essential that a large station, delivering a vast amount of power into the national grid, should be designed from the start to allow a complete withdrawal of personnel if there is a sudden alarm of leakage of radioactivity. It is a practical operating point.
I believe that, so far as it goes and on the assumptions which it makes, the Bill is at least a start in the matter of insurance and the setting up of a system of licensing, but it fails to provide a positive approach to the general question of nuclear safety. That is a considerable defect. I hope that in Committee we shall do our best as far as we can to put that defect right.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I do not propose to follow in my remarks the well-reasoned arguments of the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), except to say that I disagree with some of his conclusions. In listening, as I have done, to every speech so far made in the debate, I felt as if I were in a world of make-believe. Whilst I am glad to welcome the Bill in its provisions for licensing and insurance, I cannot help feeling that the House, as reflected in today's speeches, is like a group of Lilliputians trying to pin down Gulliver by his hair.
The atomic energy industry is a new industry, but even in its first years it has already become the safest industry in Great Britain. There is no other industry that has anything like its margin of safety. I am sure that few hon. Members realise what a great amount of finished or unfinished fissionable material is transported on the roads and the railways and is accommodated in the docks of this country every day.
As it is the traditional custom of the House, I should declare my interest. I am interested on both the practical side and the insurance side in the atomic energy industry. On the insurance side, particularly, I have heard such arrant nonsense today that I have hardly been able to believe my ears.
The Bill will lay down the course which will be open to the insurance industry for perhaps the next 100 years. But, just as has been the case ever since steamboats first crossed the Atlantic, underwriters are fully capable of measuring the risk. I regret that I was unable to inform the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) beforehand that I should be referring to him, and I am sorry that he is not now in his place. The hon. Member talked utter nonsense when he said that the private insurance industry could not measure up to this new situation.
Certain hon. Members have referred to the Windscale disaster. Bad news, of course, always makes the headlines. Ever since I came into the House in 1955 the impression that the situation is utterly dreadful has been created by hon. Members opposite whenever Strontium 90 has been mentioned and reference to the Windscale accident has been made, whereas, in fact, the truth is entirely the opposite.
I am sure that the House would be interested to hear about the Windscale disaster from the insurers' point of view. I should like to quote from a very remarkable document read to the Insurance Institute of London by one of the leading underwriters, Mr. A. B. Stewart, who today is recognised internationally as one of the foremost authorities on fission and atomic power in relation to insurance problems. He stated:
Now a few words concerning the Wind-scale accident. When this took place, some people asked whether it did not shake me in my views. But this Windscale accident, besides being an example of how it is the bad news which hits the headlines, becomes, strangely enough, to the marine underwriter, even reassuring when the report is looked at with one's eyes open, and with fuller knowledge.
I am not only referring to the fact that the Windscale reactor was completely out of date, and had no resemblance whatsover to the one which will be on a vessel, or to a modern shore reactor. Each of these is inherently safe, with all manner of automatic safety devices for shutting it down, should anything untoward occur. I am not describing these. Sir John Cockcroft did so, only last month, and I cannot improve on him. After describing the safety measures, he said: 'We have provided belts, braces and string.' As a description I challenge anyone to improve on that.
No, let us accept the fact that even with all these an accident can happen, and look at Windscale as a pointer to what may take place. The fact is that, as far as I can see, the only loss was that resulting from damage to the growing grass. A good heavy downfall of rain might well have materially reduced the loss. The only reason that the claim arose at all was that the cows had eaten the grass while it was polluted, so that all of the milk produced from a wide area had to be thrown away. The figure of total claims is just over £50,000 …
I took the trouble to find out what the monitoring stations all over Europe did about that accident. As far away as Eastern Berlin and South Yugoslavia, they estimated the atmospheric pollution 24, 36, 48 and up to 72 hours thereafter. The extraordinary thing was that in certain places 300 miles away from Wind-scale there was more pollution than there was at places within 50 miles of the station. Those are the facts.
The hon. Member for Barnsley said that he felt that the Government of the day, of whatever party, should nationalise the whole of the atomic energy industry, because private insurance interests could not possibly meet any disaster which might occur in future years. I wish that


the hon. Member were here, because I should not like to misquote him or misrepresent him. Surely, hon. Members can well remember some of the fantastic disasters which have taken place in this century and which have been fully met by the insurers in London. I beg all hon. Members to realise that in the atomic age the insurance industry will be one of the biggest foreign currency earners of all time.
We have been talking here about shore reactors, but do hon. Members realise that already other countries have atomic ships. Hon. Members will have read about the fantastic American "Nautilus", but the "Nautilus" is now being followed by other American submarines which will be reactors in themselves. Already in Russia they are completing a reactor in an atomic icebreaker.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Barnsley has now come into the Chamber, as I have been referring to him. There is already this atomic ice-breaker into which vast quantities of seawater will be directed in order to break up the ice.
Every hon. Member in the House knows that every major shipping line in the world today is considering in its new orders the fact that ships on the keel today and in the next few years will be atomic-powered ships. Norway and Holland are now nearing the completion of a 37,000-ton tanker. Is it realised that a ship with a reactor is infinitely safer than one that is either steam-driven or oil-driven because of the terrific quantities of fuel oil that a tanker or an oil ship has to carry? The actual risk of there being an explosion from a reactor is so remote that those people who exaggerate it are merely "over-propagandised" by the fear of atomic bombs, which has covered this problem ever since it was first discussed in this House. This is particularly shown in the arguments of the hon. Member for Barnsley. All of us must realise that an atomic explosion is a most difficult thing to produce. It is so fantastically complicated and so difficult to produce that it simply cannot occur by accident.

Mr. Mason: Let us clear the air a little. I did not imply, and in fact I contradicted it when the Paymaster-General intervened, that an atomic explosion could

take place from any of our nuclear reactors. In my speech, to which the hon. Gentleman has made reference many times, I was trying to draw the attention of the House and of the country to the danger emanating from radiation, which cannot be seen on ships or aircraft. I must emphasise and perhaps over-propagandise a little to make sure that safety comes first.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I am ready and anxious to accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but I want to convince him and other hon. Members that the modern reactor is one of the safest things in the world. When applied, as it will be and is being, to aircraft and ships it is about one-half of 1 per cent. less dangerous than carrying liquid or solidified methane gas across the Atlantic, as we are doing today.
I am deeply concerned that we shall not put into a strait jacket an atomic industry—and this is not a political issue at all—which with its various ramifications will double, treble and quadruple the standard of living of all people in the world within the next century.

Mr. Palmer: We all accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the difficulty of bringing about a nuclear explosion, but what is bothering many people is the special character of the risk involved and the genetic effects. That is why there is in the Bill a compensation provision up to thirty years.

Mr. Farey-Jones: That is one of the points to which I wish to refer before I sit down. I think that thirty years is a ridiculous number of years for which to make this available.

Mr. Palmer: Too many years?

Mr. Farey-Jones: Yes, I will explain why I think that. There must be somewhere a discovery period. Even those engaged in dealing with X-ray since the early days of its discovery—the Curies and company—have always betrayed certain symptoms of the attack of ultraviolet rays within seven years. The proposal to make the period thirty years in the Bill is one of the things to which I violently object, because we are actually putting a clause in the insurance policies of any company, Lloyds or anyone else, that it is quite impossible for the industry


to fulfil. That is a point to which a great deal of thought has to be devoted, because I do not see how, without a discovery Clause limited to a maximum of five years, we can expect any underwriter, even if the underwriter is the Treasury, to justify that. It would come up at any rate in the first seven years willy nilly.

Mr. Bowen: I am genuinely seeking information, quite apart from the danger of explosion. Suppose, for example, we have a nuclear power station where the fresh water is provided by an inwater lake; that is to say, a power station on the banks of a lake. Am I right in thinking there will inevitably be some build-up of radioactive material in the water, followed by a build-up of radioactive material in the vegetation surrounding the lake?

Mr. Farey-Jones: To give the hon. Gentleman a sincere and truthful but rather over-simplified answer, I would say that if the safety provisions are properly followed the water emanating from the reactor would be purer than the water going into it from any British river. There would not be anything like sufficient radioactive substance left in the water, if the safety precautions as laid down were complied with, as went into the reactor in the first place. It is a curious fact that certain industries now being followed in Great Britain, such as the lumination of watches, have far greater radioactivity than any atomic reactor that is in existence.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Mason rose—

Mr. Farey-Jones: I have rather a lot to say and I have given way twice.
I come to another point. Already in the United States they are experimenting with mobile reactors which can go on to a tractor the size of a caravan. Do we intend to insist that these have to be insured for a public liability of £5 million? Those mobile reactors will go all over the world. They will provide power in places where at present there is no power.
I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Barnsley two particular illustrations of what London, as the insurance centre of the world, has done in the matter of major disasters. So far as can be foreseen, no similar disaster is ever likely to occur from a reactor put up in Great Britain or in the United States

to compare with the San Francisco earthquake. That earthquake happened in 1906 and the estimated losses ranged from 350 million dollars to 450 million dollars, half of which was covered by insurance on the London market. At 5 dollars to the £, as it was in those days, that would be £40 million, and at today's value that would be a minimum of £400 million. I would point out to hon. Members that it is well within the limits of the London insurance market to insure ships like the "Queen Mary" or the "Queen Elizabeth" up to £20 million.
I hope that we shall not pass this Bill without taking into consideration, first, the desirability that the actual licensing of these reactors shall be controlled—an hon. Member on this side and an hon. Gentleman opposite have both pointed out that there are at the moment far too many Ministers handling this affair—and secondly, that we shall not so shackle the insurance market that it will not be able to take advantage of the present leadership which this country enjoys in providing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
We have obtained by the excellence of our scientists and by the brilliance of some of our leaders in the past few years an unassailable lead in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. I beg every hon. Member in this House and the Minister to bear that in mind when we deal with the Bill in Committee. Do not shackle the insurance industry, do not stifle private enterprise. I am not saying this in a party spirit. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that this industry must be nationalised. I say that because it is so many-sided; it has more facets than a diamond. It can be applied to agriculture, to industry, to marine affairs and to aviation. It can be applied even under the sea, as is already proved by the Americans. So we must retain a sense of values and a sense of balance.
I should like to refer to a number of other connected matters, but I am sure there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, so I will sit down with a final observation. In the world of 1959 in which international politics are causing anxiety to the whole world, the future of the atomic energy industry is probably the greatest hope left to mankind. We have a lead in it. We have a lead that is already recognised, as regards its peaceful purposes, by the United States and the


Soviet Union. Do not let us put chains round ourselves by this Bill. Let us widen the Bill, not be bound by it, and let us make it worth while.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) that we must not put chains around our atomic energy industry by this Bill. Everyone in the House would agree with him on that point, but we are debating a Bill which involves not merely the development of atomic energy. It is a rather limited Bill in the sense that it deals with safety and insurance and the issue of licences for the production of nuclear energy. It does not involve the major aspects of our policy, which one day we must debate in this House. Indeed, I hope that very soon we shall have a Supply Day to discuss the nuclear programme. In discussing this Bill, therefore, we are not able to do that.
I think the hon. Member for Watford overstated his case, just as other hon. Members have deliberately overstated their cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) quite rightly stressed the safety part of this Bill, and that is why, as he sincerely admitted, he has to use propaganda and thereby dramatise these matters so that he can stir public opinion. I think he is right to do that.
I thought the hon. Member for Watford rather over-stressed his case in his defence of the insurance companies. After all, the Fleck Committee, which dealt with the industry at great length, jogged us into thinking in terms of safety and licensing. I am not saying the the Fleck Committee was responsible for this Bill, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has said, it encouraged us to deal with those aspects. The Report of the Fleck Committee on the Organisation for Control of Health and Safety in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Cmnd. 342, was produced in January, 1958, and naturally dealt fully with the industry. Under the heading, "The Hazards of Atomic Energy," the Report states in paragraph 4:
We are particularly conscious that the Windscale accident brought to the surface the latent public anxiety about the hazards of atomic energy work. Now that the nation is committed to a large nuclear power pro-

gramme, we consider it of the first importance that the hazards of atomic energy should neither be exaggerated nor minimised in the public mind.
We must accept that last statement. I want to take up the hon. Member for Watford on that point, because he said that many of my colleagues on this side of the House tended to exaggerate the position. I assure him that the controversy about Windscale, the effects of the accident and the possibility of radioactive iodine, also strontium and radioactive caesium, was taken up by people outside this House who were certainly not of our political persuasion.
I have here a dramatic report from a Conservative newspaper dealing with Cumberland and the effects of the Wind-scale accident. The newspaper is the Sunday Graphic of 23rd November, 1958. I will not go into the details, but the article refers to the disaster and dramatises it, saying how rabbits turned black in Cumberland, how the grass had gone crimson, how calves were born mummified. There are great headlines—"Freaks follow our atom mishap". That is not said from this side of the House, it is a report in a paper which is sympathetic to the party which the hon. Gentleman defends.
We can agree, however, that this Bill is important. There are still dangers in atomic energy, and the more we read the Fleck Report, the more we recognise that we are dealing with possibilities, not of an explosion as such but of a fire which could release radioactive materials in certain quantities. It is no use arguing that we have an effective monitoring system and an effective organisation. There is a danger, it is there, and it is accepted by everybody concerned with the production of nuclear power.
I do, however, pay tribute to the Atomic Energy Authority. I am certain that it is mindful of safety. Many hon. Members, like myself, who have visited establishments such as Harwell, have seen the work of the health and physics departments. We know that the Authority is anxious to make our nuclear power industry safe. Indeed the Authority has made it relatively safe, in the sense that our industry is regarded as the best in the world from the aspect of safety.
We accept that, but we are seeking to develop and improve arrangements which


are not as yet perfect. That is why I welcome the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, who suggested that one day we should create an independent statutory body to co-ordinate this work. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) mentioned a point that I wish to raise. In referring to the Fleck Report and whether or not we were going to act upon its recommendations, the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the various functions of Government Departments. I will not go into the details, which are in paragraph 21 of the Report, but they show how various Ministries are concerned. I challenged the hon. Gentleman on what he proposed should be done, and he referred me to the Minister. Is it the intention of the Minister to pursue this matter or is it his intention to ensure that the Atomic Energy Office, which the Fleck Report suggests should be strengthened, should co-ordinate this work?
Is the Bill purely a temporary Measure? Do the Government envisage later a more comprehensive approach to the safety of the worker, particularly in our nuclear establishments? After all, the Bill has certain serious omissions. The hon. Member for Eastleigh raised a matter which I wish to raise. Here the Bill deals only with atomic energy by a maintained and controlled fission process, according to Clause 1 (1). We are now approaching the possibilities of the fusion of light elements in generating power. Zeta exists. I am not saying that it is at the stage that we should wish, but it exists. Why has it been missed out of the Bill? Do the Government envisage something larger at a later stage?
I argue, consequently, that the Bill is unfortunately preoccupied not only with safety but with other matters. Although the Opposition are not opposing the Bill at this stage—we shall criticise it in Committee—I should have preferred a comprehensive safety Measure. I do not wish us to be involved too much in licensing questions and the very important problems of insurance. For that reason, I wish that we had had a much more general approach.
I agree with the Paymaster-General that it is a difficult and technical Bill. I have read Clause 4 (2). I am not criticising our Parliamentary draftsmen—they are

very able legal men—but it is extremely difficult to understand that subsection. It reads:
Where in the case of any licensed site the provision required by sub-section (1) of this section is to be made otherwise than by insurance and, apart from this subsection.…
We finally reach a full-stop on the next page. If the Parliamentary Secretary can clearly understand it—I know he is a very able junior Minister—he must be a terrific person. I should like the Department to look at this matter again. The law appears to many of us to be difficult, but when we have the marriage of legal abracadabra and scientific abracadabra it is all the more confusing. I hope that during the Committee stage we shall be given an explanation of the subsection.
As my right hon. Friend said, questions must be answered by the Minister. My right hon. Friend asked why the powers in the Bill were being sought. He referred to Section 10 of the Atomic Energy Act. 1946. We have also Section 5 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. In another place there was an argument between the Minister of Power and many noble lords on the very question of why we have to have this new Bill when we already have licensing and safety powers. Existing powers require the Authority and Government Departments to safeguard not only the workers but also the community.
The Paymaster-General said that the Bill did not apply to universities and research institutions. We have a nuclear reactor in London, at the Imperial College of Science. I am not saying that it is a large reactor, and I should hate to lessen the enthusiasm of the professor who is doing a wonderful job in this field, but why should not such an installation also be included? After all, safety precautions have to be taken in that case.
This may also well be so in the case of research in other institutions involving isotopes. This raises the whole question of radio isotopes. They are transported every day. It is now a terrific industry. Last year the Authority's sales from Harwell and Amersham reached £600,000 and the sale of radio isotopes is increasing each year, and it is a field in which Britain is leading. Important questions of safety are involved, and these will have to be covered by the Bill. One can read into Clause 1 the possibility that radio isotopes are affected by the Bill, but we should be


told something definite. The handling of radio isotopes involves danger to personnel. What institutions are affected? Are hospitals covered?
We are going to create a new inspectorate service. The Ministry will initiate it in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Authority. The inspectorate will he mainly responsible for safety, design of reactors, site conditions, maintenance and matters connected with the nuclear power industry. Does the Minister believe that we shall get the inspectors quickly? I have doubts.
We still have the Fleck Committee's proposals. Are the Government going to implement the recommendations of the Fleck Committee? We should be given specific answers. There are dangers here. We want our scientists to be encouraged. I have here a report of Sir John Cockcroft, as he then was, being interviewed by the Evening Standard when he returned from Russia last November. Sir John is reported as having said that the Russian scientists were better off than ours. He also said:
Their scientists are better off than ours … I found less red tape than we have in Britain. Their top nuclear man gets just what he wants.
The inspectorate should attract top personnel, graduates trained in nuclear physics who will also have training in medical science or medical men trained in nuclear physics. Are we going to be able to attract top personnel? Are we going to act on the recommendations of the Fleck Committee? Recommendation X reads:
We recommend that the Atomic Energy Authority should take the lead in building up the supply of the specialised medical staff required for the control of health and safety as the uses of atomic energy become more widespread.
Recommendation XI reads:
We recommend that the Atomic Energy Authority should establish a national training centre for health physics and nuclear safety staff …
Recommendation XII reads:
We recommend that Government Departments should be directed to ensure that appropriate training in radiological problems is given in the public services and industries for which they are responsible.
Is it really the intention of the Ministry to act on these recommendations, or are we still to be surrounded by the red tape mentioned by one of our most distin-

guished nuclear scientists? Our questions must be answered.
I should like to know who will be responsible for insurance. I accept what the hon. Member for Watford has said, that the British insurance companies have acted in the field of exports. I have a very excellent publication produced by the Atomic Energy Authority. One chapter deals with the insurance of reactors constructed overseas, which we hope are to be constructed by British firms. The publication states:
The British insurance market has created an organisation known as the British Insurance (Atomic Energy) Committee. The Committee was set up with a view to providing the maximum possible capacity for the insurance of the very large values which may be represented by atomic installations, and for the very substantial limits of indemnity which reactor owners may require in connection with protection against third party claims.
Is it the intention of the Government to deal with this Committee which is now concerned with overseas insurance and which has had its work publicised by the Atomic Energy Authority? I should like to know that, because there are arguments which we could pursue about the place of private insurance or whether, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh suggested, it should be done by other means. We should have some more precise information, and I hope it will be given.
I do not oppose the Bill, but I hope, firstly, that one day we shall have a more comprehensive Measure, and secondly, that we shall not introduce questions of licensing and insurance into a Bill designed to achieve important safety measures. I hope that one day this Measure will be introduced. It is important that we should discuss this. We are dealing with a great industry which has made great strides. We must not exaggerate the dangers. Neither must we minimise them. We must be prepared to take risks. We have taken risks and we have succeeded.
In the field of the possible uses of atomic energy, we can say proudly that our country leads the world, in the main through public initiative at the centre, which has been partly linked up with initiative from other industries. In the main, the Atomic Energy Authority has achieved great success. Let us hope that the Bill in its small way will help us to improve safety, above all for our workers


in the industry and not only for the community around the industry, like my constituents in Cumberland around Calder Hall and Windscale, but also the people in our nation who could be affected by a dangerous fallout of radioactive materials.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I have listened to this debate with very great interest. One or two points have arisen on which I should like to make a few observations. Firstly, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) urged us not to over-dramatise the danger which might flow from leakages from atomic energy plants and factories. There is no intention of over-dramatising the danger, but it is a fact that the most fearful people in the world today are the atomic scientists, and the most fearful people in British industry today are the atomic energy process workers. They are fearful because they know, whether we accept it or not, that they are dealing with the unknown and that they are just scratching the surface of a mighty new science that may hold very great dangers for them, for their children and for their children's children. If we refer from time to time to the great dangers of leakages to the scientists, the workers and the community, it is not because we are indulging in propaganda, but because we are trying to create the machinery by which to give adequate protection to the scientists in the laboratories, to the workers in industry and to the community at large.
It is apparent to all of us that when dealing with the nuclear industry for peaceful purposes we are not speaking now, as we were five years ago, about an industry with a great future. We are speaking about a little giant industry in this country now and a mighty giant in the United States of America. I hope that the Bill, which is a very timely one and which must receive the support, with one or two qualifications, of every hon. Member, is only the beginning of more detailed legislation to deal with the many, problems that will arise as this great industry develops. With every new reactor we get leakages. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) spent a good deal of time reassuring us that there was no danger at all from reactors and no

danger at all from atomic submarines. That may be the view of the hon. Member, but it was not the view of the Port of Copenhagen Authority when it asked the Americans not to send their nuclear submarine to that port. It considered that there was some danger. Even if there was no danger, there was fear of danger, because one does not know enough about the problems of this vast and expanding industry.
No hon. Member on this side of the House wishes to say anything which would in any way interfere with the development of the industry or would discourage scientists taking an important part in research or industrial workers taking an active part in industry. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastleigh has stated and despite the reassuring reports, all is not well with the nuclear industry. All is not well in the United States of America. There are many hospital beds filled by workers from the atomic industry who are suffering from unknown diseases.
As the general secretary of a union, it has been my duty more often than I have wanted to communicate with the Atomic Energy Authority concerning protection for my members in this industry. Many strange things have happened that have not yet been explained. The Atomic Energy Authority relies far too much on American protective measures, which the American workers concerned and their unions do not consider adequate. Let us not be too complacent about this problem of safety.
The hon. Member for Watford said that a period of insurance over five years was enough and that a period of insurance over thirty years was ridiculous. In the chemical industry there is an industrial disease called papilloma of the bladder. It was scheduled as an industrial hazard only a few years ago. Workers engaged in dyestuff production contract this disease. It is a dreadful disease, but it often does not develop until twenty or thirty years after the worker concerned has been engaged on that chemical process. One of our most difficult tasks in claiming for men who are slowly dying from this industrial disease is finding the evidence to prove that at some time in their life in the chemical industry they worked at this process which would create the danger of contracting papilloma of the bladder.


That is a simple example, but there are many others I could give to indicate how necessary it is to have this long period of coverage for insurance.
What greatly troubles me is the difficulty of getting factory inspectors to do the amount of work which will be required as nuclear power for peaceful purposes is developed. We are already desperately short of factory inspectors. We do not, for example, have nearly enough of them to cover the chemical industry. Special training is required for this important task.
Considering the high qualifications which they have to have, we do not pay factory inspectors enough. They are men and women of very great integrity and learning and they have to be wise in their dealings with management, yet we pay them paltry sums of money. We should pay them a salary based not merely on their academic qualifications but also on the job which they do and the unpleasant tasks they have to perform day by day.
In my short industrial experience I have found that the wisest men in British industry are shop stewards. They are men of great wisdom, which is based on day-to-day negotiations at factory level. I have often wondered why this army of highly skilled, intelligent industrial workers, who have not had the opportunity of getting a college education and who have not passed their General Certificate, has not been used as a source for creating some kind of assistant factory inspectors. I am not suggesting that this great reservoir of industrial intelligence should be used as dilution of the Factory Inspectorate, but if we are to get the people we need in order to undertake thorough factory inspection, particularly in this industry covered by the Bill, we must do much more thinking about the Factory Inspectorate.
This is a timely Bill, which should be supported, although it should be strengthened and amended here and there. However, at a later stage we shall have to have a more comprehensive Measure to deal with those problems of safety with which the Bill is calculated to deal temporarily.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: It is clear that the Bill will receive a good deal of attention in Committee, and I am sure

that the Government would not want it otherwise. We welcome the principle upon which the Bill is based, since it deals with safety, which we regard as of paramount importance, and compensation. We shall want to put down several Amendments to clear up many of the problems which arise, and I shall not refer to those matters of detail which will be more appropriate to Committee.
However, I want to return to something which was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). This is a matter on which we should like assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary since it is obvious that the more answers we get to the queries which we put forward today the less we shall require to ask in Committee. I have been looking once again at the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, and I share the perplexity of my right hon. and learned Friend about it, especially about Section 10. It appears that in Section 10 there is a provision for licensing. It is true that the word "site" does not appear, but it would hardly be possible to erect a plant unless 'there were a site for it.
Section 10 says:
The Minister may by order provide for prohibiting, except on the authority of a licence granted by the Minister …
and then follows the provision that the plant must not be designed or adapted for the production or use of atomic energy or for research into matters contained therein. That seems to us to be all that was necessary, and Clause 1 now appears to be a duplication of that provision. I presume that it is not the Government's intention that an applicant to erect a plant should have to go to two different Departments for one licence. Obviously, it is intended that one Department shall have the requisite authority but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make the matter clear.
The hon. Gentleman might also deal with Section 5 of the 1946 Act which empowers the Minister to give powers of entry for inspection. It is true that the inspection does not relate to safety, although it is presumably possible for the Minister to make an Order to widen those powers. However, in the 1946 Act there are powers of entry and inspection and there are also powers to grant licences for the building of any plant. To that


extent there appears to be some duplication. There may be a very good reason for it, but we shall be glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.
The same question was asked by Labour Peers in debates on the Bill in another place. Reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place, one cannot find a straightforward answer to the queries which were then put. It is thus more than ever incumbent on the Parliamentary Secretary to clear up the matter both for hon. Members and for those in another place who will read our proceedings, since the Bill started there.
I regard the inspectorate as very important. An efficient inspectorate, together with the safety measures to be laid down in the code of safety, should avert any accident for which compensation would be payable. There is no doubt that the code of safety and strict inspection are the two ways by which to prevent accidents. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has said, the difficulty is to get inspectors to deal with the safety aspects of nuclear plants. We shall require very highly skilled men. So far as I have been able to discover, no Government since the war have been able to recruit the number of inspectors required to meet the establishment authorised by the Treasury either for the factories or the mines. It will be even more difficult to obtain inspectors for atomic energy plants because they will have to have a high degree of skill and scientific knowledge. We should be glad to hear the views of the Parliamentary Secretary concerning what the Government feel about the possibility of recruiting these inspectors, to know the number required initially and what sort of qualifications and training they will have.
It would appear that these inspectors are authorised to inspect only those establishments which have been licensed. I would have thought that if we are to have inspectors to deal with nuclear plants which have been licensed it would be a useful thing to use them to inspect those which have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and others, such as instructional and research plants, in the universities and elsewhere. I do not understand why it is necessary to exclude from inspection even Government Departments, such as hospitals. I would have thought that

although it might be right to exclude them from licensing it would not be unreasonable to inspect them just as, in the case of Government Departments, boilers are inspected by the inspectors. It seems to me that all nuclear reactors, large or small, and for research or other purposes, should be inspected.
Clause 6 says:
The Minister may appoint as inspectors …
My right hon. and learned Friend has assured me that this could be read to mean, "The Minister shall appoint …" I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether the "may" is permissive, or whether the phrase will be read as I understand it is in other Statutes, namely, as an obligation. It certainly should be an obligation.
When I heard the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) discussing the insurance aspect, I thought of a report that I had read some time ago, dealing with the hazards involved in this matter and the length of time which could elapse before it would be reasonable to expect an individual who had been exposed to radiation hazards to exhibit any serious effects. As I understood the hon. Member's argument—which was made quite fairly from an insurance point of view—he was saying that a period of thirty years was far too long.
As he will know, a very high-powered committee set up by the Medical Research Council reported upon the hazards to man of nuclear and allied radiation, and I should like to quote from that report in order to show that the period of thirty years is not at all excessive. The report says:
It is already apparent that the future development of our civilisation is closely bound up with the exploitation of nuclear energy. At present, the potential hazards from its possible military uses overshadow in many people's minds the vast potentialities for good of this new source of power. The hazards to health are qualitatively the same, however, whether they arise from nuclear weapons or from the use of ionizing radiation for peaceful purposes. The difference is one of degree and intensity only. As with other sources of energy that man has harnessed to his service, the use of ionizing radiation necessarily entails risk; but the risk is controllable within limits that he can accept
Just as in the case of nuclear weapons, the hazard is there in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The report goes on to mention the induction of cancer, and says:
It is noteworthy that tumours following radio-therapy tend to develop in tissue already severely damaged by radiation, and that, compared with leukaemia, a much longer period —up to 20 years or more—usually elapses between the first exposure to radiation and the clinical appearance of the disease.
It is no use thinking in terms of a period of five years merely because insurance companies do not like a risk that continues for thirty years. The report from which I am quoting was produced by the most expert people in our land. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) is a member of the Medical Research Council which appointed these people, and he will agree that no greater experts could have been found to sit upon that committee. We must therefore accept what it says.
The report deals with the question of cancer of the lung, and says:
The mines of Schneeberg and Joachimsthal are rich in a variety of ores and, since the latter part of the last century, pitchblende, an ore containing radium and other radioactive elements, has been extensively worked there. It had long been known that the miners were liable to die in middle-life from a respiratory disease locally named 'mountain sickness'. It is now recognised that this condition is one of cancer of the lung and it is generally accepted that there is a strong connection between the excessive mortality from this disease and the high radioactive content of the air of the mines.
Middle life must mean anything from 40 to 50 years of age, and it must mean that a period of thirty years has elapsed since the person concerned went down the pits for the first time and was subjected to these hazards.
I want to quote one more passage from the report to help to prove my case. It mentions cancer of the skin, and says:
Since the early part of the century, records have accumulated of the occurrence of skin cancers following X-ray or radium treatment. In some instances, these tumours have followed the injudicious use of X-rays for mild skin affections, or even for the removal of facial hair. The latent periods have usually been long, ranging in a recently reported series of 13 cases from 12 to 56 years, with an average of 33 years.
I hope that the Government will not be unduly influenced by the remarks of the hon. Member for Watford. I wanted to draw upon the expert committee which considered this very important matter in order to prove beyond doubt that a period of thirty years is not necessarily to be

regarded as too long a period for diseases to emerge as a result of people being exposed to radioactive materials.

Mr. Fort: I should like to read to the right hon. Gentleman a quotation from a United Nations Report by a body of which one of the British representatives is on the Medical Research Council. This concerns the point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman.
These facts render it very difficult to accumulate reliable evidence about the correlation between small doses and their effects either in individuals or in large populations.
There is an enormous element of speculation.

Mr. Robens: Yes, I would not dispute that there is a tremendous amount of speculation because we are virtually on the edge of the unknown. Nevertheless, there is sufficient real evidence here from actual cases that, in fact, in some cases it takes longer than thirty years to produce the disease.

Mr. Farey-Jones: I pointed out, or I think I did, in my speech that Professor Curie and all the people associated with radium and X-rays were exposed to far greater danger than persons in a modern reactor, or individuals operating in a pitchblende mine, for example, who are exposed to these rays morning, noon and night when working in or near that mine. Therefore, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's case.

Mr. Robens: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, and if we have all the elements of safety in modern use, there may be no danger, but we are not legislating for when everything goes right. We are legislating for something going wrong. All that the hon. Gentleman says would be perfectly correct if we were not producing a Bill to deal with a completely different set of circumstances from what he envisages, that is, the relative safety of the modern reactor, with all its safety measures, compared with a radioactive pitchblende mine; but that is not what we are discussing.
We are discussing a Bill to provide for when things go wrong or, indeed, to prevent them going wrong. That is the answer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, which has been echoed elsewhere, that thirty years is too long. We have evidence that thirty years is not too


long, and if it was possible under insurance administration—and here I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)—it would be better if we could leave out the time limit entirely, though I understand that that is not a practical proposition from the legal point of view.
Next we come to the limit of insurance of £5 million. I have never understood how this figure of £5 million arises, and I should have thought that it must have been just a shot in the dark. It is certainly not based on any actuarial calculations. It could not have been based on the amount of damage, which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington told us was £50,000 in regard to Windscale. Therefore, this £5 million is a figure presumably arrived at arbitrarily. It may well be that it is adequate for the purpose, but, equally, if there were a major disaster —and, again, I say that we are here probing into the unknown; no one at this stage can think how such a major disaster could arise—and if the dangers extended over a very wide area it might be far in excess of £5 million. Yet the Bill provides for circumstances in which compensation for damage far in excess of £5 million may be required to be paid. Then, according to the Bill, we have to go back to Parliament, which must determine what should be paid in these circumstances. In the meantime, however, payments must be made in excess of the £5 million. Presumably, the Treasury will foot the Bill after the £5 million insurance risk has been taken.
I should have thought that what my right hon. and learned Friend said was right, that this ought to be seriously considered by the Government, in view of the fact that if there is a major disaster, the Treasury must stand it, and indeed could not do otherwise, and Parliament would have to provide the funds. I would have thought that that would have been the case right from the beginning, and I support the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend for perhaps some annual contribution to the Treasury, by those who are operating nuclear reactors, the Treasury taking care of all subsequent compensation. This is new in compensation, and it is without limit. It seems to me that the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend would perhaps

be the most sensible way of dealing with the matter.
However, we will return to a number of these matters in greater detail in Committee. The fact is that we accept the Bill because it produces this code of safety and inspection. Therefore, we shall not oppose the Second Reading, but neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary would expect that it would go through Committee without very serious consideration of the Clauses contained in it.

7.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): This has been an extremely interesting and helpful debate, with speeches from both sides of the House which have shown considerable thought, with, I am afraid, the one rather sad exception of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who seemed to me to be both prejudiced and muddled, and about whom I shall have something more to say in due course.
I should like to begin by stressing what has been so rightly stressed by both the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who have spoken from the Front Opposition Bench, and by several other hon. Members, that this is primarily a safety Bill. The whole object of the Bill is not primarily to pay people when something has gone wrong, though it does do that, and it is important that it should do it. Its primary object is to ensure that there are in the hands of the Government, and in particular of the Minister of Power, powers to ensure that, as knowledge becomes available, reactors or any of the installations concerned in this Bill are only set on foot and operated in accordance with the best knowledge which our scientists and engineers can discover.
It cannot be emphasised too often that our generation and generations to come will have to live with these things, whether we like it or not, because we are moving rapidly into the atomic age. We, therefore, have to do in that field what we have done for many years regarding safety in the ordinary factory and coal mine, and that is to build up, perhaps by trial and error, because we are only human, the best code of safety that we can for operating to the best advantage to


the country these vast new sources of power.
I will run over the various speeches that have been made, not in great detail, but because, as the right hon. Member for Blyth said, if we can give general answers to some of the points that have been put, it may save time in Committee. First, I must give a little time to the opening speech for the Opposition of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport. His main point was referred to again by the right hon. Member for Blyth—the wide scope of Clause 1. At the same time, they asked why we could not rely on the 1946 Act. We shall have a good deal to say in detail about that in Committee, but we must recognise that the 1946 Act is quite out of date, because things have moved so rapidly, and that Act was passed at the very beginning of the process. Nobody anticipated at that time a nuclear programme for the generation of electricity. That was merely an Act to regularise things that had been going on under great secrecy as part of the war effort. It is, therefore, no criticism of anybody that that Act should be quite inappropriate to what has to be done now.
I will illustrate it by two examples. It is by no means clear, as we are advised, that a licence could be varied, if granted under that Act. It is clear—the incident at Windscale will bring to the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen the sort of thing I am referring to—that in operating some of these great installations, which will be going on for 10 or 20 years, knowledge may accrue which would involve changes, perhaps of a restrictive nature or maybe of a less restrictive nature. It is by no means clear—in fact it is almost certainly not possible—to exercise licensing powers under that Act if an installation has closed down. It is clear to us all, however, that if one of these great reactors were, for some reasons, to close down, it would still have to be controlled for many years in the interests of safety. I give these illustrations only to show—it is no matter for surprise—that we do not think reliance on the 1946 Act would prove sufficient.
I ought to take up the point, made by more than one hon. Member, and certainly by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, about whether we shall be involved in the complicated duplication of two licences being necessary. That, definitely, is not so. No prohibition

has been made under the 1946 Act and persons intending to build one of these new installations will apply for a licence under the provisions of the present Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what type of consideration would be borne in mind in settling these licences. The answer is, definitely, only safety. That is what the Bill is about. The conditions laid down in a licence would simply ensure that if a reactor, or any other installation coming under the provisions of Clause 1 (1, b), were set up, the appropriate safety restrictions in the public interest would be imposed.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was worried about the use of the word "occurrence" and I think I should make two matters plain. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the possibility of danger from Strontium 90. I do not think that a proper point to make in this regard. There is no possibility of people being exposed to danger from Strontium 90 unless a definite occurrence has taken place. Although I think the matter is covered, the Government will look into the other possibility, that of prolonged radiation where there is no specific occurrence which may account for it—apart from a person being, as it were, merely present.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why shipping was exempted, and also aircraft, although that matter is quite academic at the moment. He asked why there should be a difference in the conditions obtaining inside the territorial limit and just outside. This is a technical and complicated question which we must examine in Committee, but the short answer is that it relates to the necessity for acting in accordance with international convention; in particular, for ensuring that a principle—which, for much wider considerations, has always been insisted upon by British Governments—shall be adhered to, namely, that it shall not be within the unilateral power of one Government to legislate for ships upon the high seas. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to pursue that matter further. Incidentally, to clear up a point, made, I think, in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley —which shows that even the most surprising speech can sometimes have a useful result—the use of the word "site" effectively excludes ships and aircraft because, obviously, they are not sites.
Although I do so with great hesitation, because I am not a lawyer, I differ from the views expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman regarding the liability of directors. I suggest, with respect, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted to notice the effect of the words in Clause 7, where it states, among other things,
… or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director …
In broad principle, therefore, the position is that the fact that a director just did not know would not be a defence, if he ought to have known. But if, as in the example cited by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a director had been absent for twelve months, during which time a contravention had occurred, and there was no possible means of his knowing about it, he would not come within the Clause.
Another point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was mentioned by several other speakers, including the right hon. Member for Blyth. They asked why should we insure? There are a number of reasons. The British insurance industry is one of the most skilfully run industries and does business all over the world. It earns a great amount of foreign currency and it is extremely important that this industry should insure the things that it can insure. Were the Government to take over the whole of this business, including those parts of it which are insurable, they would have to set up an extremely expensive and, I am afraid, rather amateurish, organisation for settling claims and for carrying out detailed administrative work such as the British insurance industry has been doing for years, and doing it better than anybody else in the world.
Therefore, in the interests of economy and of the insurance industry as a whole, and in the interests of those who desire to get their claims settled quickly and expeditiously, the Government felt that the right policy was to deal with all insurable risks by way of insurance, while at the same time admitting that there are certain risks which are not insurable and which must be dealt with differently.
At this point perhaps I may refer to an amicable exchange between the right hon. Member for Blyth and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) who seemed to be at cross

purposes. There will be no limitations under the Bill regarding a ten-year period for payment. Claims may be made right up to the thirty years precisely for the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. There may not be many claims and they may be difficult to prove; but there may be some, and therefore we feel that they should be allowed for in the Bill, but, as was explained by my hon. Friend, who has great experience of insurance, after ten years, or thereabouts, it becomes impossible to calculate what reserves should be put aside to meet such claims and therefore the risk is not insurable.
In this Bill the Government have dealt with a difficult situation in a most sensible way. They have said to the insurance companies, in effect, "What can you insure?", because insurance will be the simplest and cheapest way to deal with the matter. The insurance companies are prepared to go up to a period of ten years and an amount of £5 million —that deals with the point about the figure of £5 million. We do not think that £5 million is a realistic figure. There is no evidence to lead us to suppose that damage to that extent could ever take place. The insurance companies, with their vast resources, are willing to insure to that figure, so why not take advantage of their capacity? But beyond £5 million and a period of ten years, the matter becomes uninsurable. Therefore the Government have said that if there were some inconceivable catastrophe—if, after ten and up to thirty years, some colossal damage did occur, Parliament and the country would have to meet it. It is not an insurable risk, and therefore it is dealt with in the Bill in a different way.
I now come to one or two points put to the House by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer). He asked me about the evacuation of personnel. That is precisely one of the things which would be considered before a licence was granted. It is for that reason that the Bill starts by saying, "You cannot operate without a licence." We will then discover by trial and error, through the advisory committee which is being set up, what conditions should be laid down, and whether it turns out that the conditions must be tightened up or can safely be relaxed.
On the question of the appointment of inspectors, Clause 6 (1) is surely the necessary beginning. It says:
The Minister may appoint as inspectors to assist him in the execution of this Act such number of persons appearing to him to be qualified for the purpose as he may from time to time consider necessary or expedient.
That is a start. Until that happens we cannot appoint anybody because we have no Parliamentary power. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act we shall set to work, in view of the number of licences, to see where we can get the people from. They may have to come from the A.E.A. We shall work from that as a beginning. The great thing is to make a start. There are no powers, and we are taking powers, and shall develop them as we go along.

Mr. Robens: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point of "may" rather than "shall"?

Sir I. Horobin: I am advised that "may" normally means "shall" and in this case certainly means "will."
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, who knows a great deal about this subject, asked me why Zeta and thermonuclear reactors generally were excluded. They are not, of course, excluded, but they do not come under Clause 1 (1, a), with those things which will automatically be licensed at the start. The obvious reason is that the Atomic Energy Authority does not come under that provision anyway. Before any thermonuclear machine of that kind were allowed to be set up by anybody who would normally require a licence the Government would take action, as they are allowed to do under Clause 1 (1, b). That is the short answer to that point.
My hon. Friend also referred to the problem of sub-critical assemblies of isotopes. This point is giving us a good deal of, I might almost say, trouble, in the Ministry at the moment. We must draw a distinction, but there have been differences of opinion in various interchanges on this matter. Plant designed for the production of atomic energy by a maintained and controlled fission process, or what we broadly call a "reactor," will have be licensed anyway, no matter how small, whether it is in a university department or anywhere else. The reason is, we are advised, that nobody at this stage knows where to draw the line. I

am sure the House would wish that as long as there is doubt safety must take priority. Nobody can at this stage say that a reactor is so small that damage might not occur.
When we turn, not to self-maintained instruments but to instruments where an external source of neutrons is required to continue the mechanism—and there are many of these weird instruments in the universities and research establishments today—or mere stores of radioactive isotopes, the position, while difficult, is not impossible. It is clear that there must be control, because isotopes can be stored in quantities which vary very much and where they can become critical. This is one of the troubles in some of the chemical plants in processing elements from the big reactors.
The Government are ready and anxious to ensure that no hindrance is put on research. It may be that in Committee we can find words to avoid unnecessary complications of this sort. In particular, I have little doubt that we shall be able to find words which will limit the wide terms of Clause 1 (1, b). Which—

Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman has made a very important statement about university research nuclear reactors. I am sorry to say this, but I think that what he is saying conflicts with what the Minister of Power said in another place in reply to an interjection.

Sir I. Horobin: We are in a difficulty here, because I understand that under the rules of order we cannot quote verbatim here the proceedings in another place. I could go at some length into some of the interchanges, where there was clearly a good deal of misunderstanding perhaps on both sides, in that rather technical discussion. I assure the House that a reactor will have to be licensed however small and wherever it is.

Mr. Robens: This is a rather important point, which was raised in another place. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to quote the Minister I am sure he can do so within the rules of order. That is permissible. The Minister of Power made it clear that what the Minister is referring to would not be the case, but the Parliamentary Secretary is now telling us that the Minister was wrong. Was the Minister


wrong in another place, and is the Parliamentary Secretary right in this place?

Sir I. Horobin: I am afraid I could not quote it, because I have not with me the text of HANSARD from another place. I am sure that the Minister was, as usual, right. I can at any rate assure the House that the fact is that a reactor of any kind —I have used the word "reactor" as shorthand for what appears in Clause 1 (1, a)—will require licensing. We are trying to deal with sub-critical assemblies of isotopes. We may be able to do something about this, and we can certainly deal with limiting the very wide words in Clause 1 (1, b):
… carrying out of any process preparatory or ancillary to, the production or use of atomic energy or for the storage, treatment or disposal of nuclear fuel or other radioactive matter.
That could, for example, cover the mere metallurgy of beryllium, where no radioactive processes of any kind arise. It is not the intention of the Bill that chemical works dealing purely with the construction of cans in beryllium, where radioactive matter simply does not occur at all, should be included. I would make it clear that Clause 1 (1, b) is permissive and not compulsory. All we would be concerned with is that the Minister did not do foolishly what he has no intention of doing. In so far as that will protect industrial processes, we shall be very ready to consider it during the Committee stage.
There were two points with which I ought to deal in the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley, because it is important that, should anybody be so ill-advised as to read it, they should not spread alarm and despondency. He really seemed to think that testing for radioactivity in the neighbourhood of occurrences of any kind, or even testing in the neighbourhood of a reactor or installation to make sure that no dangerous occurrences do take place, would be the job of the licensee. It is entirely irrelevant whether the installation is controlled by the Atomic Energy Authority, the Central Electricity Generating Board or a private firm like the G.E.C.
The testing is being done now and will continue to be done by Governmental action. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government are test-

ing now and will continue to test, and test more. All this talk about where the fall-out turns up and meteorological effects and so forth is quite irrelevant. Exactly the same people will do the testing, and do it as carefully whether they are dealing with something at Windscale, something at Aldermaston or at Hinkley Point.
Another point I want to make clear, because we do not want people to be unnecessarily frightened, is, as the right hon. Member for Blyth properly pointed out, that there are some inescapable residuary dangers. The hon. Member for Barnsley kept harping on the fact that we could not see radioactive emissions and so on. The fact is that we can check and test them and do so far more accurately than we can check most of the industrial hazards which cause industrial diseases. I wish we could check the dangers of pneumoconiosis dust in the coal mines or byssinosis fibre dangers in the cotton industry as accurately as we can check this. It would be very unfortunate if a general impression got about that we do not know what is happening and cannot check it. In fact it is true to say that there is more careful, constant and exact testing of the hazards to which workpeople and the public are exposed in this industry than in any other.

Mr. Mason: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises from the speech I made, the questions asked and the way I put them, that we want to ensure in this House before Bills go through either Second Reading, Committee stage or Third Reading that the questions are noted by Ministers? The incidence of pneumoconiosis and byssinosis and many industrial diseases would not be so great if we took as much note of them as we are taking of the danger of radioactivity.
Secondly, on the giving of licences for sites, it would appear that the Atomic Energy Authority, the State-owned and controlled body, is to allow private enterprise to step in after all the research and development has been done initially. In spite of all that has been done by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in planning and research, all this work is to aid private ventures.

Sir I. Horobin: I do wish the hon. Member would try to get into his head that what people are concerned with is whether they are to be killed or there is


danger. They really do not care at Barnsley whether the danger comes from A.E.A. or a private installation.
If I may get back to sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) asked a practical, important point. He asked if in the case of a large factory there was a part in which there was to be an installation of this kind the licence would have to cover the whole of the area concerned. The answer to that is, no. In the ordinary way, when the person concerned applied for a licence he would show on a map or otherwise the portion where it was proposed to site the installation.
I wish to make reference to a point made by the hon. Member for Cleveland. I thought that, unlike the great bulk of his speech, it was a little unfair. He said that it was rather late in the day to jog the Minister of Power into setting this legislation on foot. Surely that comes rather odd from a member of a party whose friends in another place and here today have devoted quite a substantial part of their speeches to trying to find why we need the Bill at all. They cannot have it both ways. The situation is that we know a lot more about these things than any of us knew in 1946. Unlike some other people, we change our legislative proposals in the light of experience.
The right hon. Member for Blyth asked me about establishment and numbers. I am afraid it is too early to give an answer about that. It is clear we shall have to see how the thing goes. As application for licences come in, in the first place they will obviously be those from the Central Electricity Generating Board and we shall have to see how lone it takes to work out the details and how far the procedure can be standardised. The right hon. Member may take it that there will be no limitation to the numbers and qualities. The great thing is to get a sufficient number of the right type of men.
I think I have covered the bulk of the points which have been raised—

Mr. Robens: May I ask another question, which has occurred to me as I have been listening to the Parliamentary Secretary? The Minister will now license all new plants. Will the Bill in some way operate retroactively to provide for the same code of safety on the plants which have already been built?

Sir I. Horobin: With the exception of one reactor at Aldermaston, there are no plants built to which the Bill will apply, because the A.E.A. installations do not come under it. As to the C.E.G.B. ones, of course we shall immediately proceed to the licensing. The point about the Aldermaston General Electric installation, I confess had not occurred to me, but, speaking offhand, I should say it should certainly be necessary to obtain a licence for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (LICENSING AND INSURANCE) [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the regulation of certain installations capable of emitting ionising radiations, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any government department which are attributable to the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. Maudling]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURE (SARETY REGULATIONS)

7.38 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr.J.B.Godber): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture (Circular Saws) Regulations, 1958, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.
I suggest that we might also discuss the second Motion—
That the Agriculture (Safeguarding of Workplaces) Regulations, 1958, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved".

Mr. A. J. Champion: We have no objection.

Mr. Godber: The purpose of these Regulations, like that of the power Takeoff and Ladders Regulations, which were made in 1957, is to safeguard the agricultural worker against the more hazardous aspects of his employment. I should like to deal first with the circular saws. These of course can be very dangerous machines. The Regulations attempt to deal with the chief causes of trouble involved. The prescribe generally for sound construction, proper maintenance and adequate lighting. There are specific requirements about unsafe blades; top and bottom guards must be provided and also, for the fixed bench type of circular saw, a riving knife is required to prevent the cut wood binding on the saw at the far side of the blade.
The provision of proper equipment is the concern of the employer, but the employee has certain more limited responsibilities such as making use of safety devices and—this is important, too—reporting certain specified obvious defects such as missing teeth in the blade. No one under the age of 16 may work at a circular saw, those between the ages of 16 and 18 must be supervised, and an inexperienced worker of any age must be instructed before he is allowed to operate.
Most of the Regulations come into force in twelve months' time although only six months in allowed for some requirements, such as restrictions on highly dangerous conditions. We have to give a certain amount of time to enable those concerned to comply with the Regulations. Consultation with the orgainsa-

tions concerned has been both wide and helpful.
The second set of Regulations refers to the safeguarding of conditions of employment in buildings. Safety standards are laid down for floors, including catwalks, fixed ladders and stairs. Openings of various kinds in walls and floors and also grain pits, stokeholds and furnace pits must be guarded if workers run the risk of falling more than 5 ft. through or into them.
Stairs must be properly constructed—for example, there must not be any missing steps or other obvious defects—and they must have adequate handrails. Where stairs are so steep as to be virtually fixed ladders, there must be a handhold at the top for people getting on or off. The workers' own share of responsibility in all this is again limited to making use of safety equipment and reporting certain obvious defects such as broken handrails and guards and missing steps.
These requirements are all essentially simple and the installation of safeguards will not be costly. The second set of Regulations will not come into effect until 1st April, 1961. This will give employers time to check the state of their buildings and, perhaps, make it possible for any necessary alterations to be fitted in with work submitted, for instance, under farm improvement schemes.
Those are the principal features of the two sets of Regulations. They are mainly introducing in statutory form an element of sound common sense into provisions for both the use of these saws and for the buildings in which farmworkers work. Some of them may seem to be obvious but, undoubtedly, past experience has shown that accidents have occurred through lack of these provisions. They are a useful further addition to the safety Regulations which we have been introducing under the Act and I feel sure that in general they will commend themselves to the House.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We are grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the Regulations. I have only one or two points to put to him. The first is that the legislation under which these Regulations are made was passing through the House in 1956 and the Bill became an Act in July of that year. We


have been waiting a very long time for these Regulations. It was over eighteen months ago that the Queen finally gave her approval to the Bill, and I would have thought that something could have been done about this before now. I realise, however, that the hon. Gentleman's Department has had to have consultations, and rightly so, particularly with the employers' organisation and with the employees.
To say now, after eighteen months, that an employer should have a further two years in which to put his premises right seems to me to be rather stretching it, hanging it out much too long and permitting dangerous conditions to continue to operate for a further period of approximately two years. I could understand it if these were tremendous structural alterations which had to be made, but, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary himself said, most of the things which will have to be done are comparatively simple. Today we have no great shortage of building workers and there is no shortage of materials. I should have thought that the Regulations relating to the safeguarding of workplaces could well have been brought into operation in January of next year, permitting eleven months from now in which to do what I regard as a comparatively simple job of improving these workplaces. We do not, however, propose to vote against the Regulations. I merely complain at the length of time which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is giving employers in this connection.
On the Committee stage of the Bill three years ago we discussed the appointment of inspectors. The Regulations would appear to be of little value unless their provisions are enforced. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies, I should like him to say whether the Ministry has appointed an adequate inspectorate or what steps have been taken to ensure that those on whom these duties will be placed will be able to carry them out. What has been done about appointments or instructing officers within the Department to do this job? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider these appointments carefully and make sure that sufficient of the right personnel are charged with the duty of ensuring that the Regulations are carried out and that sufficient men will be instructed to do the job.
I hope that all the organisations concerned will take suitable steps, with the help of the Ministry, to advise their members of the responsibility which they carry. There is, of course, a definite responsibility upon the employer, but I believe that making known the provisions of the Regulations to the workers is particularly important because upon the workers in the industry undoubtedly falls a responsibility which they must be prepared to accept. It will be no use their shrugging off these responsibilities and saying, "It is up to the boss." These Regulations place a clear legal responsibility upon employees themselves to report defects as they are seen. In addition, they must not in any way interfere with the safeguards provided by the employers under these Regulations. I hope that the trade unions particularly concerned with these matters will bring this aspect of the Regulations strongly to the notice of their members.
These are sensible Regulations. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend will do everything possible to ensure that they are carried out in order that the safety of the worker shall be assisted by them.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I am happy to give these safety Regulations a warm welcome. They represent a tremendous step forward in the wellbeing of agricultural workers. In the county of Cheshire, of which I have the honour to represent a considerable portion, the Regulations concerning the safeguarding of workplaces will be of tremendous importance.
For very many years it has been the custom to feed the cattle during the winter months by hay which has been thrown down from hay lofts. When introducing the Regulations, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there would have to be alterations to buildings. There will have to be considerable alterations to the farm buildings in Cheshire in order that the pitch holes which exist may be safeguarded by a rail.
That is a comparatively small and technical matter, but I should like to follow what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said about informing agricultural workers. I


so well remember the debate we had on 18th July, 1957, on similar Regulations made under this Act. The late Mr. Dye spoke of the importance of publicity. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, when winding up that debate, said:
We will give the matter the utmost publicity. It is most important that everybody concerned should know about this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 1512.]
The matter was the Regulations.
I read a small extract from the Farmers' Weekly this week which said: "On guard." The extract related to the Power Take-off Regulations, similar Regulations to these draft Regulations. What it said was that a free explanatory leaflet could be obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture in London or from the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. That was an explanatory leaflet relating to Regulations similar to these.
The National Farmers' Union, I happen to know, is informing its members of the purport of these Regulations, but, in my opinion, the instructions which are going out in the form of leaflets, and in the form of information from the National Farmers' Union, are hardly enough.
This aspect of publicity is most tremendously important, and I would ask my hon. Friend to use his influence, and to ask the Minister to use his influence, to see whether the television programme companies, the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority could carry out some series of feature films demonstrating exactly what these Regulations mean. If the farming community were able to see and have explained to it through the medium of television just exactly what these Regulations mean, it would be far more convinced than by just reading the Regulations in a leaflet. I am not saying that these leaflets are not first-class documents. Of course they are, but they are not the same thing as a film, and I think that the medium of television could well be employed in conveying these most important safety Regulations to the farmworkers and also to the farmers.
Prevention is so much better than cure, and I believe that prosecutions and penalties could be avoided if all in the farming community were to know exactly what these Regulations mean. As on

18th July, 1957, a strong plea for the dissemination of further information and publicity was made, so tonight in the same way I reinforce that same plea for more publicity.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I share the enthusiasm for these new Regulations which has been manifested by hon. Members who have already spoken. I think that both sets of Regulations will form a valuable addition to those which already exist under the parent Act of 1956.
I reiterate the plea made by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) for maximum information to be given relating to these Regulations. There is to be a time lag before either set of these Regulations comes into operation. That period could well be used to give maximum publicity to them in order that the Ministry will have to have recourse to proceedings only in the very minimum number of cases.
There are only four other questions on which I should like information. I notice that in paragraph 6 of the Circular Saws Regulations there is a provision relating to the granting by the Minister of Certificates of exemption. A similar provision exists in paragraph 5 of the Safeguarding of Workplaces Regulations. If I remember rightly, this provision is made in both sets of Regulations by virtue of powers given by Section 1 (5) of the 1956 Act. Under the Regulations which are already in existence under the 1956 Act, and which relate to ladders, there is no provision for certificates of exemption, if I remember correctly. The same applies to the Regulations relating to the avoidance of accidents to children, but a provision similar to this in these draft Regulations exists in the Power Take-off Regulations.
In the two paragraphs, 6 and 5, of these two sets of draft Regulations reference is made to "particular cases". I want to know what type of particular case the Minister has in mind in which it would be right and proper to grant a certificate of exemption.
Those same paragraphs refer to "particular persons". I should like some additional information as to what "particular persons" the Minister has in mind in thinking of giving certificates of exemption.
The certificates of exemption will be for
such periods as may be specified.
It would be helpful if we could know what the Minister has in mind in relation to the periods, because there is already to be some time lag to enable persons who are to be covered by the Regulations to take the necessary action. As I understand it, the certificates of exemption would be granted for a specified period. What period has the Minister in mind?
As I understand it, when certificates are given they will be given on conditions attached to them. What type of condition has the Minister in mind? For example, under the Regulations relating to circular saws, in what type of case, to what type of person, for what period, and on what type of condition will a certificate of exemption be granted? It might be helpful if the Minister would tell us, too, what he has in mind for certificates of exemption under the Power Take-off Regulations. If I remember rightly, a similar if not identical provision relating to certificates of exemption exists in those Regulations.
Subject to obtaining some additional help from the Minister on that aspect of the matter, I welcome these Regulations, and I believe that they will contribute considerably to the safety and well-being of all those in this industry.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Godber: With the leave of the House, I should be glad to answer some of the questions which have been raised. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have spoken for the points which they have brought forward. I am grateful also that clearly these Regulations are welcome in all parts of the House.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), however, chided me a little for being slow in bringing forward these Regulations. He made the perfectly fair point that it was some time now since any regulations were brought forward. It may appear at first sight that we are being somewhat dilatory in making use of this legislation, but I think the House should realise that these Regulations require the most complicated series of consultations. I am sure that we should be at fault if we did not consult all the bodies con-

cerned, whether workers' organisations, the farmers or any of the manufacturers who are the suppliers of these things, before bringing forward the Regulations.
The Regulations which we brought in first were the simplest and most straightforward. We come to a more complicated field now. Whilst these Regulations might not appear to be very complicated, in both cases we have had to have detailed consultations with between thirty and forty organisations, and that takes time. Even if it is right that we have not proceeded as fast as the hon. Member would wish, we had to make sure that we made the fullest investigation before bringing the Regulations forward.
The hon. Member also thought that, having taken all this time to reach this stage, we should be more speedy now, particularly in relation to the workplaces. I thought that that criticism was answered to some extent by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who pointed out that the regulations call on the farmers concerned to make certain alterations. I agree that in a good many cases this work could be done speedily. I certainly urge that, where it can be done speedily, farmers should not wait until the last moment of the period. We have urged that on previous occasions in relation to other regulations and, generally, farmers have been ready to do that.
We must realise, however, that there are certain cases where a substantial structural alteration of a building is necessary, and we have to legislate for cases of that kind among others. We felt, therefore, that we had to allow what may appear at first sight to be a rather generous period of time, but I hope that farmers will come forward at once and provide these necessary safeguards. In many cases, of course, good farmers have already provided them, and this is really a matter of applying more force to those who have not been quite so careful.
At the moment there are for England and Wales seventy-three inspectors on our staff who are responsible for this work. They are carrying out their duties efficiently and well and are getting round pretty well. It could be argued, perhaps, that if there were more of them they would get round more frequently, but they are having a substantial effect in relation to the Regulations which are already in


force. There have also been several prosecutions in recent months which have given further impetus throughout the country to the work which they are doing.
I think that at the moment we have an adequate staff of inspectors but we shall certainly keep watch on this matter. As more regulations come forward it might be necessary, of course, to increase the number of inspectors.
I entirely agree with what has been said about publicising the Regulations. We went to some pains to publicise to the greatest possible extent previous Regulations. We have issued a tremendous number of leaflets and we have done what we can to interest the farming community in this problem, by articles in the farming Press and that kind of thing. I welcome very much the suggestion that this is a matter in which the trade unions can give us invaluable help. Any help which they can give in publicising the regulations we shall very much welcome. The same applies to the N.F.U. Any such help will be a great asset.
My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester suggested that more use should be made of television and films in this respect. There have been comments on this matter on television on certain occasions. On 18th September, 1957, there was a talk on B.B.C. television about safety on the farm. The subject has also been mentioned on a number of other occasions. I remember, when listening to "The Archers" hearing something about safety on the farms.

Mr. Champion: What did Dan say?

Mr. Godber: I am sorry, but I cannot recall. I should welcome it if Dan said a little more on this subject in the future, because we always welcome his sound common sense, and this is a very effective way of publicising these things. We have also two special films on aspects of safety on the farms now in an advanced state of preparation. We hope to have these out soon for use all over the country. I think that meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester.

Mr. Temple: Will my hon. Friend take steps to bring those films to the notice of the television programme authorities

so that they can put them over on television, which is a most effective medium?

Mr. Godber: We have assured the television companies in the past that we are willing to supply them with any of our films, but I will see that these two are brought specially to their attention in case they are able to make use of them. We will also, of course, do what we can through leaflets and normal forms of publicity to deal with the matter.
In addition to the question of publicity, the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) also raised the matter of certificates of exemption. He has been industrious in his researches. He pointed out that there is no provision for these certificates in relation to ladders and to children, but only to the Power Take-off Regulations and to these Regulations. The answer is simply that we have provided for the possibility of exemption purely because we want to be able, in case of need, to exempt where there are matters of research and development going on in relation to any process on the farm and the use of machinery. We want to be able to ensure that those who are carrying out experiments are able to do so without contravening the law.
For example, the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering at Silsoe, which is doing a great deal of this research work, might otherwise be breaking the Regulations.
As far as I can ascertain in the short time that has been available, we have not yet found it necessary to provide exemptions, but we have the powers, though we propose to use them only in that type of case. It is certainly not a matter of exempting farmers or areas from the Regulations, but only a matter of exemption for that type of activity. Therefore, some of the hon. and learned Member's other questions fall to the ground. Clearly, there is no need for us to provide for exemption to carry out experiments on the question whether children should be allowed to ride on vehicles. We know all about that. Therefore, that is not included. It is also self-evident that there is no need to make special provision for certificates of exemption in relation to ladders. I repeat, however, that use of


these powers will be very sparing indeed arid that the hon. and learned Member need have no fears.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have received the Regulations. They are a useful addition to a not unsatisfactory list of efforts to make farms safer. There is no doubt that the advent of mechanisation has made the farm a much more dangerous place. We are seeking in the Regulations to make it a safer and more secure place. Those Regulations which we have already introduced have had good effect. These will help further, and we shall be bringing forward more regulations to ensure that the farm is as safe a place as it can he made in modern conditions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Circular Saws) Regulations, 1958, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.

Agriculture (Safeguarding of Workplaces) Regulations, 1958 [draft laid before the House, 18th December], approved.—[Mr. Godlier.]

CHILD MIGRATION (AUSTRALIA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: There are two principal aims in child migration which I wish to bring before the House this evening. The first, which is common to all migration projects, is to increase the British population in the empty spaces of the Commonwealth, where there are unrivalled resources of fine farmland and mineral and industrial wealth which remain still relatively undeveloped.
The second aim, certainly not less important, is to rescue the children of broken homes and a bad environment in the United Kingdom and to open for them what I might call the door of opportunity to a happy and hopeful future in our great overseas Commonwealth. Instead of a cheerless back-street existence, often unloved and unwanted, these children, if they go to Australia, are given the fresh air, sunshine and beauty of the countryside; a new start in a new country and the prospect of a full and useful life.
To hon. Members who have studied the four successive Reports of the Oversea Migration Board in the last four years, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is himself the Chairman of that Board, the background to the subject of child migration is well known. Before the war there were Canadian schemes which lapsed mainly owing to dollar difficulties—I hope only temporarily—but today we are concerned only with Australia and with the various voluntary societies which are concerned with child migration to that country.
There are, in fact, about a dozen organisations doing extremely valuable work in this field. Most of them are financed perhaps by private endowments, certainly by private subscriptions, supplemented by contributions from the Australian Government and by an allowance of 10s. per week per child which is made by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
There are today many unfilled vacancies in the excellent homes run by the voluntary societies. Some of us here, and indeed the Overseas Migration Board of which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) is also a member, have from time to time urged the Government—and the Under-Secretary, as Chairman of the Board, has himself urged as Under-Secretary of State —to increase the child allowance from 10s. a week to a £1 a week. Finance, however, is not really the limiting factor in this matter. There is not a lack of money, but, surprisingly enough, a lack of children. The reason why more children are not going to Australia under these schemes arises from the Children Act of 1948 which established a nationwide system of public care by local authorities for children in need of it.
I do not at all criticise that Act. I believe it was perfectly right that there should be public responsibility for deprived children, but I think that the local authorities have interpreted their duties under that Act somewhat rigidly and without much imagination. They have seldom considered migration as a possible solution for these children. They have ignored the immense opportunities which exist and which life in Australia presents for some of these children, and they have disregarded altogether the successful careers which the vast majority


of these children have been able to build up for themselves in later life in Australia.
The attitude of the local authorities is, in fact, the key to this whole problem. That is why I am raising the matter this evening and why I am particularly delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has just taken her place in the Chamber, because I think that she may be able to influence the local authorities in the way which some of my hon. Friends and I would like. I am convinced that the advantages to the child of these emigration schemes are not sufficiently appreciated by the children's officers in this country, who are far too reluctant, in my opinion, to relinquish their own responsibilities in suitable cases. That reluctance is no doubt reinforced by the report of the fact finding mission which went out to Australia in 1956.
It was, as I think hon. Members who have studied the subject will agree, a thoroughly prejudiced report which has done immense harm and put a quite unjustifiable brake upon child migration in the last two or three years. The report acknowledges the fact that emigrant children have done well in after life, but goes on to make this quite extraordinary statement:
While this is most satisfactory, we did not think it necessary or desirable to examine this aspect … we did not regard the measure of success in after-life as having a direct bearing upon our consideration of the subject.
Imagine it! A fact-finding inquiry into child migration regards the future of the child and how it does in life after being at these schools in Australia as an irrelevant consideration; whereas in fact, of course, it is the whole point.
Migration in suitable cases gives these children a fresh start in life, a better chance, better prospects and a better future. The end product is immensely important and entirely relevant. These deprived children from bad homes, instead of drifting back, as they otherwise might very easily do, to their earlier and unsatisfactory environment, enter may be the Church or the professions. The boys become farmers or doctors or lawyers or soldiers or businessmen. Any field of activity is open to them. The girls, perhaps, become teachers or nurses or farmers' wives.
Fairbridge, which is one of the best of these voluntary societies—and I shall refer to it because it is the one which I happen to know most about—has had only two failures in the last ten years out of its 500 or 600 children who have been sent out to Australia in that time; about one-third of 1 per cent. But the fact-finding mission did not think it worth while or relevant even to inquire into the type of man or woman that Fairbridge turns out.
The then Minister of Immigration in Australia, Mr. Townley, said in 1956 that these Fairbridge children
have established themselves as fine citizens.
The present Governor-General, Field Marshal Slim, who has also visited the Fairbridge school, says:
The children there have been given a love they might otherwise never have known".
He adds that bringing love to these children is perhaps an even more important consideration, an even greater achievement, than making them into useful citizens. After seeing them, Lord Swinton, a former Secretary of State, reported on the obvious happiness of the children and remarked that when they left school there was no difficulty whatever in placing them in employment. He said:
There are twenty applications for every boy".
That shows what a high reputation these schools have in Australia—that there are twenty applications for every boy as he leaves school. My noble Friend the present Secretary of State has also visited Fairbridge and has paid tribute to the good impression he received and how well and happy all the children looked.
I should like to give the House some sort of picture of what these Fairbridge Schools are like. The one in Western Australia is a property of about 3,000 acres. It has a 2,000-acre farm and a model village with a chapel and twenty cottage homes, apart from the school buildings, where the children and staff actually live.
There is another school of the same kind in New South Wales, and a smaller home in Tasmania. Fairbridge has recently initiated an imaginative and useful new experiment called the "Family Plan", through which widowed or deserted mothers, or maybe fathers, can go out to Australia as well as their children. The mother is found accommodation and


employment through Fairbridge as near as possible to the school so that she can visit her children regularly and probably have them with her for part of the school holidays. If, after a time, she marries again in Australia, or does well in her employment and can make a real home for them, the family can be reunited.
The family plan is good in that it meets one of the aims of child migration. It meets the Australian need for more people of British stock, and that is extremely important. But it does not meet the other and, I think, equally vital aim of providing hopeful futures for deprived children from bad homes in this country. It does not do so because the family plan children are not really deprived children. They are not that type of child. The tragedy to me is that the deprived child, the one who most needs the facilities and opportunities which these voluntary societies can give, is not now receiving them—because of local authority ignorance, and, in some cases, even prejudice. The local authorities simply will not release the children in their care. They say, as though it were axiomatic, that even a bad home is better than an institution. That is what they all say when I take this matter up with them. It is always the same phrase, and people tend to accept that kind of phrase without thinking about it, as though it were automatically true. I am not at all sure that it is true, and I will give the House an example of what I have in mind.
A Fairbridge girl, now grown-up, returned recently from Australia and went to see her mother in London for the first time for fifteen years. The director of the Fairbridge Society in London was rather reluctant for the girl to see her mother because he knew the background. However, the child thought she had a duty to do so and she went. She found that her mother was a prostitute. She was horrified and said to the Director of the Society, who told me this story, "Thank God for Fairbridge which gave me a better life, because had I stayed here in this environment this is probably the kind of person I would have become myself." I think it very likely that this would have been so.
Now another side of the picture on this point about institutions: there was a case of a girl who had been at Fair-

bridge and was getting married. Not unnaturally her fiancé wanted to have the wedding at his home, but she objected. She told him that she wanted to go home for her wedding. "But," he said, "You have not got a home." She said, "Of course I have—Fairbridge." That does not sound like an institutional atmosphere to me. If a girl looks upon it as home, that sounds pretty good to me.
I agree that small groups are usually better than large ones, and many of the voluntary societies today are thinking in terms of smaller establishments, of groups of 10 or 12 children in a house, attending the local Australian school and working up to a university education if they have the necessary scholastic ability. I believe there is great scope for expansion on these non-institutional lines.
The societies, by and large, will find the money and the facilities if the local authorities will allow the children to go. I do not say that this applies to every society, but I know that Fairbridge is ready and anxious to extend the schemes on a far wider scale than at present, if only the children—the raw material—were available. A few weeks ago I went down to the Fairbridge reception centre in Kent where the children stay for a month before going to Australia in order to get acclimatised to the kind of atmosphere they will find. It is a country house, very near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State, near Knockholt, set in 30 acres of lovely parkland.
As I walked into that house I could hear the children laughing and shouting as they were playing together. They were happy and thrilled to be setting off on their great adventure. The matron is a warm-hearted, human person, sympathetic and understanding, whom the children obviously love. They all had new clothes and shoes, of which they were proud. I talked to them all and they were in a great state of excitement. They were to set off two days later by boat, escorted by a young Australian school master and his charming wife who had been on an au pair teaching arrangement over here. They were returning to Australia and were to look after the children on the voyage out. I cannot express adequately the impression the happy atmosphere of that place made


upon me. There was only one disappointing feature. There were only five children in a house which could have held 25. That is the pity of the whole thing. There are vacancies there, and there are vacancies in Australia, but not enough children from the United Kingdom to fill them.
This is not at all a large problem numerically. I am not talking about a mass migration of deprived children. My hon. Friend can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that there are about 60,000 deprived children in local authority care in this country. But I am not talking of tens of thousands, I am talking of a few hundred who would be suitable for migration and who would benefit from it. Fairbridge has introduced its family plan simply and solely because not enough deprived children were available to fill the vacancies in Australia. There are now 60 vacancies at Fair-bridge, 60 wasted places. This is not a large number, but even 60 children given the chance of a new life in this way are important. Even one child would be important simply because it is a child and because its future may depend upon the start in life which it is given. It would be desirable to extend the activity in Australia, and I hope later in Canada again, of these societies. At the moment, however, I am not pleading for an extension but merely to fill the existing vacant places.
Hon. Members will recall a case, which was reported in The Times and in many other newspapers last summer, of a broken home of nine children which had at that time cost the London County Council £20,000 for that one family alone. The fact-finding mission records that upwards of 1,500 migrant children in Australia cost the United Kingdom £40,000 a year. They do not mention that, to keep those children in local authority care in this country would be much more expensive and might amount to as much as £250,000 a year. If they were getting a better chance of life by staying in local authority care in this country I should not be quibbling tonight about the cost, but I do not believe they are. I think that at enormous cost to the taxpayer these children are getting not such a good present nor such a good future as they could get if they went to Australia.
That is the point of my challenge to the local authorities—and of my plea to the local authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the picture I have tried to present to the House is a challenge to the local authorities. Are they going to retain every one of the 60,000 children in their care? Cannot they spare even a few hundred and give them the opportunity which societies like Fair-bridge can offer? I wonder whether we in this House should be content to leave scores of empty places in Australia and yet retain 60,000 children in local authority care in Great Britain?
I ask my hon. Friend and the Government to give official support to the plea that I am making, and to confirm, as I think he can, the good work that these societies are doing and to the good life and the good future which the children would have in Australia. I hope the Government will give not money—in most cases the voluntary societies can find the money—but encouragement and a lead. Will my hon. Friend give his official blessing and backing? That is what I should like to hear from him.
Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department write to the local authorities, if she finds that this case strikes a chord in her heart, not a mandatory directive but at least a strong appeal, urging them to release just a few of their 60,000 children to go to Australia, which is expanding in every year and every decade and which has an increasing need for people of British stock to help populate its vast spaces? These children are wanted and needed there, and they will be warmly welcomed and given a great chance in life.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) not only upon raising this important subject on the Adjournment but upon the excellent way in which he has presented the main issue. All that remains for me to do is to underline some of the more important points.
I, too, would refer chiefly to the Fair-bridge Society, although as hon. Members know there are many other excellent societies involved in this work of child migration. The Fairbridge Society maintains schools in Western Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and British


Columbia. The central feature of this debate is that, although 200 or 300 children can be accepted in these schools, there are at this moment vacancies for 60 or more in Australia.
Generally Adjournment debates are concerned with pressing the Government for more money. Today it is not money we are after. We are trying to underline the fact that wonderful facilities are open to children from this country in Australia and that we are not taking advantage of these opportunities. In the old days it was fairly easy. The societies were approached by the parents, relations or friends of children in poor circumstances, and they arranged for the children to go out and be trained in Australia. How ever, as my hon. Friend has indicated, since the Children Act, 1948, the responsibility for such children has been placed on the local authorities, and the local authorities do not seem to have done very much to help in the sphere of child migration.
I suggest that there are four main reasons for this, if I may so term it, lack of sympathy. The first is one already referred to, that local authorities would much rather send children to a home than to any form of institution. That is an excellent principle, but I dispute that these farm schools can be termed institutions. My hon. Friend has given the House a picture of how these schools are operated in Australia. It is very difficult to suggest that a youngster placed in a home in the care of a local authority in one of the big industrial cities of this country would be better off than a youngster with the wonderful climate, wonderful opportunities and the home care that he would get in the Fairbridge schools in Australia.
Another difficulty sometimes suggested is that concerning the next of kin. If one parent is left, he must give his consent; it is only right and proper that that should be done. But there are cases when the next of kin may be some very remote relative, such as a cousin several times removed, and such a person may not have any knowledge of the Commonwealth and may automatically react against migration.
One does not disparage in any way the excellent work done by the children's departments of local authorities and the

children's officers, but one could perhaps suggest two other contributory reasons for the unpopularity of child migration, first the lack of knowledge of the Commonwealth, and secondly, in some cases a leaning towards empire-building or perhaps it would be fairer to say that those concerned who have children for whom they are responsible do not like to move them somewhere abroad when they have not 100 per cent. knowledge and confidence in those concerned with child migration.
For example, the London County Council has, I believe, 8,000 children in its care. They cost the L.C.C. or the ratepayers of London some £10 per week each. It is wrong to say that all the children at present in the care of the L.C.C. are better off living in this great city than they would be starting a new life in Australia. The average age of the youngsters who go out to Australia is about ten, though they can be taken from the age of four up to fourteen. In the Fairbridge schools they receive not only farm training, but technical training. That should be emphasised, because it is not often appreciated and some do not want to be farmers. If they are clever enough and can pass the necessary examinations—and they are helped in every way—they can attend, and indeed they have attended, universities in Australia and have ended up with a degree and have become extremely useful citizens, making a good contribution to the future of Australia and the Commonwealth.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department do all they can to show local authorities that not only Fairbridge but associated organisations, which exist to help child migration to the Commonwealth, can render great service to at least a number of the children now in their care. I hope that my hon. Friends will do everything they can to impress upon the local authorities that they should at least examine the scheme and take advantage of it where possible.
It is not the main issue, but there is also the question of funds involved tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said that the Government now gave a grant of 10s. per child per week.


The Oversea Migration Board suggested that that sum might be doubled, which would involve some £11,000 a year. Eighteen months to two years ago the House debated the Commonwealth Settlement Fund and voted £1½ million for helping migration. I imagine that it is from that Vote that this sum would come. In that debate the point was made that in the past we had voted a fund for migration, but that on no occasion in recent years had the Fund been fully used. In other words, there was still money in the kitty.
Once this scheme of child migration is fully appreciated, it could be implemented to an increasing extent and we should find that it was a very excellent thing, not only for our children, but for Australia and the rest of the Commonwealth. Finance is not the immediate object and I hope that the publicity given to this debate will make local authorities more adventurous, that it will encourage them to examine this scheme and that it will make the parents and the education authorities better informed as to the whole aspect of child migration and the great future that can be secured far our children in Australia.

8.33 p.m.

Sir Archer Baldwin: I endorse all that has been said by my two hon. Friends and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) for introducing this subject. It was never contemplated, unfortunately, that the Adjournment would come on so early in the evening, or many more hon. Members would have been present to support what has been said. It is of fundamental interest to this country and to the Commonwealth as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton referred to the great continent of Australia where the problem of child migration has been barely scratched. The Australians are very anxious to fill the open spaces. They know full well that if we and they do not fill the open spaces the day will come when the overspill from the Asiatic countries will arrive. We should then have the same sort of trouble that we have recently had in Africa. Because of that the Australian authorities are anxious that Australia's population should be increased, especially with Britishers.
I shall not plead for the limited number of children which the various excellent societies want and cannot get. I want to go much further than that. As a nation we should use all our efforts to see that some of these unwanted children are enabled to go to overseas territories. The figure of 60,000 has been mentioned, but in 1957 more than 62,000 children were boarded out and in the care of local authorities. That is a tragic number when the Fairbridge and other societies, making very little claim, if any, on the British Treasury, are unable to fill their homes in Australia.
The first thing required is an alteration of the Children Act, 1948. That is one of the stumbling blocks for local authorities.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member must not suggest legislation.

Sir A. Baldwin: I apologise. I call attention to the Children Act, 1948, and one can form one's opinion as to whether it should be amended.
Section 17 says:
The Secretary of State shall not give his consent under this section unless he is satisfied that emigration would benefit the child, and that suitable arrangements have been or will be made for the child's reception and welfare in the country to which he is going …
which is good, but the Section goes on to say:
… the parents or guardian of the child have been consulted …
If the parents or guardian of a child are not responsible for the child sufficiently to see that the child has a chance in life, they should not be allowed to put a damper on the child's migration. That provision should be changed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue this matter. It is clearly out of order to suggest legislation.

Sir A. Baldwin: One important recommendation of the Hurst Committee was that judges and magistrates should be allowed to waive the rights of parents who had made no attempt to discharge their parental responsibilities. However, little notice has been taken of that recommendation. Local authorities should have more power to permit children to be adopted by overseas countries.
We have voted about £1½million for child migration, but we have spent only very little. We should have voted a very much larger sum and ensured that it was properly used. Future generations in the Commonwealth would be only too delighted. I hope that the Government will be much more realistic about this matter. The fact-finding mission did a great deal of harm with its report. It disclaimed any responsibility for investigating what 'happened to children in later life, saying that such an investigation was not within its terms of reference.
If there was one thing that that fact-finding committee should have found out it was what had happened to the children who had gone to Australia. If it had done so, I am sure that it would have discovered that to the extent of about 90 per cent. the children sent out there had made good and were going to universities, and so on. If that is what happens to children who go out there from our institutes and homes we should not try to stop them going. The committee to which I have referred did a lot of harm by not making sufficient inquiries. We are thin on the ground in this country and in many parts of the Commonwealth. The sooner we fill up those gaps the better it will be.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Although I have spoken in many debates upon migration generally, I have so far had no specific interest in child migration. Nevertheless, I am sorry that I missed hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). I fully intended to be here, and am sorry that I was rather late.
First, I want to make one or two general points. I agree with the last point made by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin). I should think that our decisions in the matter of child migration should stand or fall largely by what has happened to those children who have migrated in the past. We want to know what their careers have been. We want to know whether they have made good, in the material sense, and whether they have led happy lives. That is essential if we are to devise wise policies in this matter.
There are two general points of some importance in this connection. We send youngsters overseas at a very early age. One of the arguments against encouraging the migration of adult citizens is that we

have already invested a great amount of capital in them. That argument is not decisive, but we have to take it into account. When a man emigrates, at the age of 25 or 30 he is taking with him a great deal of the effort that we have put into training and educating him, and bringing him up. No such argument arises in the case of the migration of young people. We have not invested anything like so much in them, when they are in their early teens.
On the other hand, there is one great difficulty which we have always to keep in mind, namely, that whereas the adult emigrant is making up his own mind, and is fully capable of doing so, in the case of a child migrant we are making up his mind for him, and acting as his foster parents. In that case we must be extremely careful. Some of the arguments raised in the speech of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) had a bearing on this matter, but I will not attempt to go into their merits.
Whichever authority is concerned in the question whether or not to send children overseas, it should be very careful that it is exercising its choice with responsibility and wisdom. I do not say that it is more difficult to decide that a child should go to Australia at the age of 10 than it is to decide that he should remain here. Whichever choice is made, it is affecting his whole life, and it may be right or wrong. I think we would all agree that we have to be very careful. That is one reason why the hon. Member for Leominster was making an important point when he stressed the importance of finding out about the careers of young people who have already emigrated. That is the one thing that can shed light on the kind of decision that ought to be made by whichever body is making it.
These seem to me to be two ways in which child migration differs in its general aspect from the migration of grown-ups. I should think that, in general, where it seems right for the individual child, migration is to be encouraged. This is particularly so where, at the other end, it is possible to find the child fitting into an organisation which will take care of it and see that it is guided through the difficulties of having to go to a new country in years of adolescence and is given a start on some sort of progressive career when it has got beyond the years of


adolescence, or, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is helped by a university course.
We must try to make sure that that situation continues to exist and works well. In that situation I should have thought that, generally speaking, where it seems to be for the good of the individual child migration should be encouraged, just as we have encouraged the movement of adults in great numbers to different parts of the Commonwealth. I am very happy that the hon. Member for Surbiton has initiated this debate this evening.

8.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Like those other hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, I also am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) for having selected this subject for discussion in the House tonight. I am glad that our other debates ended early, because it gives us more time to deal with this important subject than otherwise would have been the case.
Let me start by touching upon one point raised by more than one of those hon. Members who have spoken, and that is the question of finance. It would not be correct to interpret the Commonwealth Settlement Act as voting a specific sum of money—£1½ million—for migration. That particular piece of legislation set., as available for migration, a sum of up to £1½million, provided that the Government were satisfied that that money was required in order to achieve the general policies to which we have set our hands. As a matter of fact, migration in its broad sense was going last year and is still going remarkably well. Indeed, before any additional money can be made available, each claim has to be justified on its merits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred to the recommendation for increased maintenance allowances for children. That was considered by my noble Friend the Secretary of State, and his decision was set out in the Third Report of the Oversea Migration Board. He said that in that case he did not think then, from the information that was available to him, that the project to double the maintenance

allowance was justified, and that he did not feel he would be justified, in any case, in selecting a particular society, as was the proposal, for that purpose. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said, this is not, as far as child migration is concerned, a question of finance. He drew a somewhat imaginative picture of the broad-minded and generous Chairman of the Oversea Migration Board asking a narrow and mean-minded Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations for additional finance for this purpose. That is apocryphal. The truth of the matter is that, if there was a good case, and if it were needed, I am quite sure that the question of additional finance would be very carefully considered, but, as he said, this is not a question of a lack of money but a question of a lack of children.
The existing child migration schemes are supported both by the Commonwealth and State Governments in Australia and by the United Kingdom Government because we believe that they operate to the benefit of both countries. We are anxious to ensure that people of British stock play a full part in the development of our great sister country in the Commonwealth. We recognise the advantage from the Australian point of view of ensuring that as many prospective citizens as possible come to the country during childhood so that they may grow up as Australians, regarding that country as their homeland and being familiar with its manner of life and point of view. If at the same time the migration of these youngsters from the United Kingdom can help to solve some of the personal tragedies and deprivations, so much the better.
I do not regard, and I do not think the House would regard, child migration primarily as a solution to a social problem or problems in the United Kingdom. Sometimes it is not fully realised that the social changes which have taken place over the last twenty years or so in this country, and which have ensured a better and fuller life for so many of our children than was experienced by children in the past, have in some ways changed the pattern of need regarding child migration.
This debate gives me a welcomed opportunity to pay tribute to the voluntary organisations, to their workers and to their supporters who over many years


have assisted in providing a steady stream of child migrants from this country to Australia and, in earlier years, to Canada. They now have the satisfaction of knowing that a large proportion of the boys and girls who made the long journey under their auspices have become useful and successful citizens of what may be called their foster-mother land.
I agree that when evaluating the benefits of the child migration movement generally it is proper to take into account the success achieved by children in later life. The fact, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton regarding the Fairbridge Farm Schools, that over a period of ten years or so and out of 500 or 600 children there have been only two failures is a proud record and a justification of the faith which that organisation and its supporters have put in this work.
There have been a number of critical comments about the fact-finding committee which a few years ago went to investigate the general position regarding child migration in Australia, primarily in order that the Oversea Migration Board might have full information on which to advise the. Secretary of State. That committee did not feel that the "end product", so to speak, was necessarily a consideration to bear in mind in providing that advice. Whether they were right or wrong is a matter of judgment.
At the same time, it is absolutely true that organisations, like the Fairbridge Society, the Big Brother Movement, the Migration Councils of the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, Dr. Barnardo's Homes and the Northcote Fund, have a multitude of individual success stories to their credit which more than justify the devoted work which they have done over the past 40 or 50 years.
There is sometimes, not in this debate but elsewhere on other occasions, a temptation when discussing migration to speak of it in very general and broad terms. I know that most of those who take an active part in this work realise that migration is not a question of statistics, that it represents nearly and completely a whole series of individual human problems which must be dealt with with immense sympathy and care.
My hon. Friend referred to the Children Act, 1948. I do not think—at least, I should be surprised—that anyone would disagree with the principle upon which that Act was based. It places upon local authorities here a duty, wherever it appears to them consistent with the welfare of the child, to secure that his or her care is taken over by a parent, guardian, relative or friend. As I understand it, the object is to bring the child back into the environment of the family, its own natural family so to speak, as soon as possible, in order that it might take up the ties of family life. The Act also lays on the local authority a general duty to exercise its powers with regard to the child so as to further its best interests and to afford it an opportunity for the proper development of character and ability.
The House would generally agree that in many cases, although not necessarily all, and particularly in those where the chances of rebuilding a family environment are remote or non-existent, emigration can provide the best possible solution for the future of a child. Where an authority decides that the emigration of a child should take place it must first obtain the consent of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who must satisfy himself where appropriate that the parents have been consulted and that the child, where old enough, consents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) thought that the consent of the parents was perhaps unnecessary in certain circumstances, but the House as a whole will be anxious to ensure that in the very delicate ties that bind parents, even unsatisfactory parents, to their children we should not give up the opportunity to maintain those ties until we are perfectly certain that it could be of good to neither child nor parent. I am sure that if the child is old enough its wishes in the circumstances should be properly considered, as is provided for at present.
Therefore, I say to the House that there are proper safeguards—I think it is right that there should be—for the legitimate rights of the family unit, so to speak, and of the child, when making vital decisions to send a child many thousands of miles away to start a new life. The Oversea Migration Board drew attention in its


First Report to the fact that local authorities in the United Kingdom were in many cases unaware of the advantages of child migration. It is obviously right that where a local authority arranges for a child in its care to emigrate, it should be satisfied that the decision is in the best interests of the child and that the conditions which the boy or girl in question will meet with when it arrives at its destination are satisfactory.
It was partly with the object of reassuring local authorities that the fact-finding mission to which reference has been made in this debate went to Australia and reported in August, 1956. It is perfectly true that certain aspects of that Report were critical of some of the features of the system which was then in operation, but I think it would be fair to say that the Report was not intended to be antagonistic to child migration in principle, nor, indeed, critical generally of the admirable work being carried out both here and in Australia by the various voluntary bodies to which reference has been made.
It suggested certain improvements, and these have been carried out. As a result, local authorities can be assured that where they decide that it is in the best interests of a child to emigrate the conditions under which he or she shall do so will give him or her a fine opportunity of making the most of the new life which the child will lead when it reaches Australia. In 1957 my noble Friend the Secretary of State completed a series of new agreements with the various voluntary organisations under the Commonwealth Settlement Act, which embodies the recommendations, or those which were acceptable, of the fact-finding report. As a result, local authorities should consider very carefully whether for a particular child in a particular case the project of going overseas and starting a new life would provide a future for that child which would provide the best answer to the individual problem which the child represents.
This new pattern of child emigration which is now developing has one important aspect. This aspect certainly fits in very closely with our ideas of child welfare here. It is represented by the development of the Fairbridge Family Scheme to which my hon. Friend the

Member for Surbiton made reference, which was introduced with the approval of the Australian and United Kingdom Governments in May, 1957. As my hon. Friend explained, this provides for the emigration of children with one parent—a widow or widower, a deserted wife or husband who is the mother or father—and normally arrangements are made for the child to go ahead of the parent and for the parent subsequently to follow to Australia. This scheme has been working on an experimental basis and is due for review at the end of the second year, which will be in May next.
The extension of what one might call family emigration to other voluntary societies is a possibility. If, as I hope, the Fairbridge experiment can be shown to be successful, I believe that in some respects the future of child emigration may increasingly take this form. This does not mean that there is no scope for the continuation of the emigration of individual children from this country to Australia. It merely means that where there are strong arguments for trying to keep some part of the family unit together those arguments should be respected so that as far as possible the principle which is at the basis of the Act of 1948 is maintained in emigration.
However, concerning the arrangements for the care of these children who go on their own to Australia, it has become increasingly the practice of societies there to find some means of fitting those children into the environment of family life as opposed to keeping them in what is called, rather crudely, an institution. Even where it is necessary for them to remain on a farm or at a school, it is the practice to ensure that as far as possible the children go to an Australian family during the school holidays and later, if it can be arranged, that they should be boarded out with a neighbouring family so that they can enjoy not only the advantages of instruction and training, but also a family environment in which to grow up.
No one supposes that such arrangements are easy to achieve, but I am sure that that principle of trying to maintain the family environment in their new home in Australia, even for those children who can no longer remain in contact with their own family or any part of it in the United Kingdom, is right and proper.
Generally speaking, therefore, I would say with great sincerity that I believe that child migration today is on sound and proper lines and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said, the only thing that is wrong is that insufficient children are coming forward to fill the existing vacancies. Out of a total of nearly 2,000 places for the United Kingdom at the end of November last year, over one-half were unfilled and only 62 children were awaiting transport to Australia. Whereas in 1950 388 children emigrated, in 1958 the total was only 80. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not a question of money. It is a question of the opportunities being available; and where it is appropriate, there are strong

arguments that good use should be made of those opportunities.
I hope that this debate will help to call attention to these opportunities and also to reassure those who are responsible for the care of eligible children so that they may consider seriously the chances of a better life which emigration may hold open to them and that perhaps they may be more willing than is at present the case to take advantage of the existing schemes for child migration, both for the benefit of the children and their families and for the benefit of Australia and the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Nine o'clock.